Datasets:

huuuyeah

/

meetingbank

like 7

AS AMENDED a bill for an ordinance amending the Building and Fire Code of the City and County of Denver. Amends Article II, Chapter 10 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code, the 2019 Denver Building and Fire Code and the 2019 Denver Green Code to correct errata found after the initial adoption in December of 2019. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-15-21. Amended 7-12-21 to extend the time-frame in which major projects that have received approval by the city to be designed under the 2016 building and fire codes are to receive permits and begin construction. The amendment replaces the package of building and fire code amendments filed previously with the clerk, with a revised set of amendments that allows approved major projects designed under the 2016 building and fire code to receive permits and begin construction by April 22, 2022.

DenverCityCouncil_07122021_21-0661

June 18, 2021 and replace with July seven, 2021 on page one line 22 Excuse me, strike 20210056a and replace with 20210059. Thank you. It has been moved. May we get a second? So I can. Thank you. Councilmember Flynn. Questions or comments by members of council? Councilmember Herndon. Thank you, Madam President. The purpose of this amendment is to extend the time frame in which major projects that have been that have received approval by the city to be designed under the 2016 building, and fire codes are to receive permits and begin construction. This amendment replaces the package of building and Fire Code amendments filed previously with the clerk, with the revised set of amendments that allows approved major projects designed under the 2016 Building and Fire Code to receive permits and begin construction by April 22nd 22. Specific changes are found in Denver Building Code Administration Section 103.10 .2.6 and Fire Code Section 102.13.2.6. The prior set of amendments required permits to be obtained and construction commenced by July 31st, 2021. And if you have any questions, we do have Eric Browning from Community Planning Development. That can answer any questions folks may have. All right. Great. Thank you. Councilmember Herndon. I see Councilmember Sandoval. Go ahead, please. Thank you, Madam President. Eric, thanks for joining us. Can you explain what this does? Yes. Good afternoon and thank you. Eric Browning, the interim building official for Community Planning and Development. Thank you for having me this evening. The amendment simply changes the date by which those major projects designed under the previous codes, the 2015 and 2016 codes needed to start construction. The Department recognized that due to the catastrophic effects of COVID, many of these projects lost their financing over the last year and have been struggling to get it back and that the prior date that was in the code July 31st, 2021, would not have been reasonable for these projects to get under construction and were this date to come to pass. All of these projects would expire, costing them literally millions of dollars in lost time and redesign to upgrade to our current set of codes, the 2019 Denver Building and Fire Code. So this is a recognition of the economic impacts of these projects and a longer version of the time from which they can start construction . But this this would be separate than his zoning permit rights for some of the zoning permits, like the old home tax amendment that's expiring right now. That wouldn't have any impact because there was a project in my council district that needed that was under this building fire code for July 31st. But then it also had a different zoning permit. They're not correlated, correct? They're separate. Correct. Yes. These are only building fire code amendments. This and this revision is under MSI Chapter ten and has no effect on zoning code. And then do you know how many projects are impacted? How many projects are we doing this amendment for? Yes. So there are, we estimate, between 50 and 55 projects that this could positively impact. All of these projects have started sort of valuations of $5 million or more. Many of them are in the tens of millions of dollars, and some of them are even over 100 million. So we're talking about very large developments to offer one additional piece of information. There are about 60% of these projects are for housing. And so we're talking about 6500 housing units being affected by this by this change, 1500 of which are affordable housing units as well. So we really feel the need for this to be approved. Can you after we after you're done, can you send me the list of 50 or 55 projects if you have them, so that I can know which ones and if any are in my council district that I would like. I would prefer to have the whole entire list, if you could. Yes, absolutely. All right. Thank you, Madam President. Q Councilmember Sandoval all saying no, their hands raised four questions by members of council. Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment, please. Herndon. I Cashman. I. Sandoval. I saw you. I. Torres. I black. Hi. CdeBaca, I. Clark. I. Flynn. All right. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. Ten Eyes. Ten Eyes Council Bill 20 1-0661 has been amended. Councilmember Herndon, will you please put council Bill 661 on the floor for final passage as amended? Yes, Madam President, I move that council bill 20 10661 as amended be placed upon final consideration and do pass. That I can. Thank you. It has been moved and we've got the second borough council members for your comments by members of Council on Council Bill 20 1-0661. CNN. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 661 as amended. What I. CdeBaca. I. Claire. I. Flynn. I. Herndon. I. Cashman. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Tourists. I. Madam President. I then a secretary closed the voting and announce the results. Tonight. Ten eyes council bill 661 has passed as amended. That concludes the items to be called out this evening. All other bills for introduction are ordered published. Council members remember this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote I. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilmember Herndon, would you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor? It's not president. I move that resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass in the Bloc for the following items. Everybody get comfortable in all series of 2020 1068307070708070907 ten 07320677069607040713074606990 700 0701070207250726072707290743069507 11 0724073307360737073807390740074107440657066906700674. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Herndon, for the motion. May we have a second? Again, thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. Madam Secretary, roll call. Black. I see tobacco. I. Clark. I. Flynn. I. Herndon. I. Cashman. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres, i. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. Ten Eyes. Ten eyes. The resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Our pre recess announcement tonight. There will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 448 changing the zoning classification for 4785 North Key Home Street in Sunnyside are required public hearing on Council Bill 461 Changing the zoning classification for 3625 North Camarena Street and Northeast Park Hill. A required public hearing on Council Bill four six for changing the zoning classification for 1880 South Monroe Street in University Park and a required public hearing on Council Bill 592 amending Ordinance 20200961 series of 2020 to extend the duration of an interim interim zoning regulation to allow certain temporary unlisted

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to amend agreements with AHBE Landscape Architects, of Culver City, CA; Hirsch & Associates, Inc., of Anaheim, CA; Mia Lehrer & Associates, of Los Angeles, CA; and RJM Design Group, of San Juan Capistrano, CA, for as-needed landscape architecture services, to increase the aggregate amount by $4,000,000, for a revised total aggregate amount not to exceed $7,000,000, and to extend for one additional one-year term for a revised total of four optional one-year extensions. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_06132017_17-0460

Christian Curtis. Thank you. Number 14. Item 14 is a report from Public Works recommendation to amend for agreement for as needed landscape architectures services to increase the aggregated amount by 4 million city. Thank you. Brief staff report, please. Craig back. As vice mayor, members of the council. What you have before you this evening is similar to some of the other requests that we brought previously. This is for as needed service contracts. This particular item focuses on landscape needs with the passage of measure. What we're seeing is a need to do a number of different smaller projects. Some of those are in parks. We'll use landscape firms to do that. We were redesigning certain medians. A good example of that is the work currently going on on Second Street and Belmont Shore. So these are, again, as needed contracts for projects that come up. That concludes that report. Thank you, Councilman Austin. So moved. Thank you. Any public comment on this item saying no members, please cast your vote.

Approves a ten-year loan agreement in the amount of $750,000 to Menalto LLC to facilitate the acquisition of the property at 3727 Delgany to accommodate business relocation within the Brighton corridor in Council District 9. (BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE) Approves a ten-year loan agreement in the amount of $750,000 to Menalto LLC to facilitate the acquisition of the property at 3727 Delgany to accommodate business relocation within the Brighton corridor in Council District 9. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on . The Committee approved filing this at its meeting on 8-5-14.

DenverCityCouncil_08252014_14-0598

Day. Well, one day. 620 has been ordered, published. And, Madam Secretary, can you tee up the last one, which was on final consideration 598 called out by Councilwoman Fox. Councilwoman Fox, what would you like for us to do with this? Please put it on the floor for the expected vote. Thank you, Councilwoman Fox. Councilwoman Layman, can you please please 598 on the floor for final consideration and do pass? Yes, Mr. President, I move the Council Bill 598 series of 2014 be placed on final consideration and do pass. Is then moved in segment comments. Councilman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. President. I am seeing one gigantic grab bag that says, surprise, this is this is a loan that we are making $750,000 and we don't have a clue what it's for other than lifestyle, entertainment, $750,000 for a lifestyle entertainment loan, and they will not tell us what it is. So I'm going to vote no. Thank you. Councilwoman Fox, any other comments from members of the council? Councilwoman Ortega. I just want to ask someone from OED if they can come up. John, maybe. Good evening, John Lucio, the deputy director of the OED. So, John, is there any more you can tell us about this project at this point in time? At this time, we cannot it hasn't been finalized yet. The negotiations are still going on. So why why are we bringing this forward at this time? So it's not clear what those. Negotiations are going to be. So the borrower is using a he's banking on a tenant to support the cash flow for the loans, the loans actually to the property owner for the acquisition. But we can't disclose who. And that's very common in economic development. We can't disclose who this is at this time. I know this came to committee. We had lengthy discussions with the the property owner who is working on the project. And it sounds like a very interesting and exciting concept. But I just wanted to know if there was any more that you all have seen move forward that would allow you to share with us. So at this point, you're saying. At this point I haven't done it is. And at what point will you be able to disclose that with us. As soon as the tenants and their landlord reach an agreement? If we if we disclose who this business is coming from out of town, we could jeopardize the entire deal. So at this point, we don't want to we cannot do that. How typical is it that you do this type of a deal here? Several times we negotiate with companies from out of state or corporations and quite a few businesses over. You cannot disclose who they are until the very last second. So that's an important. But that's what it is. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Neville. Thank you, Mr. President. This was the expected vote from Councilwoman Fox and the expected response from me saying things the same way, but coming to a different conclusion. I too, would have a lot of skepticism over a deal for a mystery tenant. I'm not in the habit of buying a pig in a poke, but the the the the developers in this case have an amazing track record. These are the geniuses behind Battery 621 and industry. And that's that's a group I'm willing to gamble on, as well as the excellent work that's been done by the Office of Economic Development . Vetting this deal. So while it is unusual, while it is something that, you know, I wouldn't ordinarily eagerly embrace, this seems like a worthy bet. Thank you. Councilman Nevett. Councilwoman Robb. Thank you, Mr. President. John Lucero Since I was not in committee, I want to ask you a question that I hope you can address, though I may not like the answer since you can't tell us the tenant and I understand that that could jeopardize closing the deal. Correct? I want to know if the tenant doesn't come, what issuances OPD has that this is still a solid loan. Is it just that the group has a good reputation? What sort of backing did they give you? How do we know that this is going to be a strong place for us to be and not something that you come back to in two years or four years and renegotiate? Councilwoman fights won't be here then, but her echo will be, I'm sure, and she'll be saying, I'm not loaning to this group again. Right. So the again, the loan is based is to the borrower and we're very confident to our underwriting that we well leveraged with the assets of the transaction and the guarantees. So and we were hoping to be able to tell you who the tenant would be. It would be exciting when we can do that. And then if that tenant has not come through, the borrower does have the ability to pay the loan and seek another tenant. Payday loan right at the time. Where you can. Yes, exactly. So it's been it's been underwritten as a loan. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Councilwoman Robb, any other comments from members of council scene? None, Madam Secretary. Councilman Brown. Thank you, Mr. President. One might concur that the last two Monday nights in this chamber represent lifestyle entertainment. Perhaps we should charge an entertainment tax. But any event, the the BET analogy got me because when I bet, I bet with my own money, not the city's money. So I'm going to be voting no on this. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Brown. Councilman Brooks? Yes. I'd just like to make a little correction. This is not an industry development. This is a development by Bernard and Camille Hurley and their property owners on on Brighton. And. But I still would like to echo Councilman Neville's sentiments. This is these are owners that are ferociously working to redevelop Brighton. And they're working with other property owners. They do have a track record. Unfortunately, you know, as John stated in economic development deals, this happens all the time when you have to sign a non-disclosure agreement on who the business might be until all the finances have been worked out. So I definitely respect my council colleagues, but the Office of Economic Development is doing what they have been tasked to do. Make investments in parts of the city where the market is not. And so they are tasked to take some risks. And so they're doing that. But this is a this is definitely a sure bet. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Brooks, Councilwoman Monteiro. Thank you, Mr. President. Last week I voted for this, and it really bothered me that I did it because I, as a council representative for this district, had not been briefed that this was coming forward. And they waited all week and still no phone call. I don't even have the level of which some would say it's your fault duty. But, you know, so to the level that some of my other colleagues have and so I'm going to be abstaining. I'm not comfortable with this at all. And if somebody wants to take the time and call me, that's great. But no one took the time at all to call. And I represent this council district and would have would have more of an expectation that I should have been contacted. So I just got to encourage my colleagues to vote the way that they feel is the most appropriate for me. I'm just going to abstain. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman Monteiro. Any other comments from members of council seeing none. Madam Secretary Rocha. Thoughts? No. Can each. After that? Lehman Yes. Lopez I. Monteiro Thing. Nevitt, I. Ortega, I. Rob. Shepherd. Pass. Susman. Right. Brooks. Brown. No. Shepard. Hi, Mr. President. I. Councilwoman Ortega, are you called? I'm sorry. Okay. And then Councilwoman Shepard goes hanging. Fire. Oh, I'm sorry. After Arthur died. All right. There. We got it. Madam Secretary, please close the very announced results. Minus two names. One abstention. 92 nays, one abstention. 598 does pass on final consideration. All right. I believe that all the bills that were called out so we are ready for the block votes, all of the bills for introduction are ordered published. Councilwoman Lyman, will you please put the resolutions on the floor for adoption?

A resolution by the Council of the City and County of Denver, sitting ex officio as the Board of Directors of the RiNo Denver General Improvement District, approving a Work Plan, adopting a Budget, imposing Capital Charges and Maintenance Charges, approving a Mill Levy, and making appropriations for the 2021 Fiscal Year, and approving an Amended Work Plan, adopting an Amended Budget, and making appropriations for the 2020 Fiscal Year, as necessary. Approves the 2021 Work Plan and Budget and amends the 2020 Budget for the RiNo Denver General Improvement District in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-10-20.

DenverCityCouncil_11302020_20-1267

13 Eyes Council Bill 20 Dash 1162 has passed. We're going to now convene as the board of directors for the Reno Denver General Improvement District Council is now convened as the board of directors of the Rhino Denver General Improvement District Councilmember Flynn. Will you please put Resolution 1267 on the floor? Yes, Madam President. I move the council resolution 20, dash 1267, be adopted. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. We've got Councilman Herndon with the second the public carrying for resolution 1267 is open. May we have the staff report, Michael? Evening Board members. I am Michael Kerrigan with the Department of Finance, Capital Planning and Programing Division. I am before you tonight to give the staff report and request approval for the Reno Denver General Improvement District 2021 Annual Work Plan and Budget and the 2020 Budget Amendment. The district is located northwest of downtown and includes residentially and commercially assessed properties around the Brighton Boulevard corridor. Generally, the grade is centered on Brighton Boulevard, stretching from I-70 on the north to 29th Street on the south and bounded east by the Union Pacific Railroad and by the and to the west, by the Burlington Northern Railroad Line to Girard supports infrastructure enhancements and maintenance in the Reno area, including streetscape enhancements to Brighton Boulevard. City Council approved the formation of the Rhino. J.D. The Rhino Denver. J.D. by ordinance number 309 Series 2015 and established City Council as the ex-officio board of Directors of the District. The ordinance also created a district advisory board comprised of property owners within the district. The ordinance specified that the that the Advisory Board should subject to the approval of the Board of Directors, conduct and manage all affairs of the District as the authorized agent of the Board of Directors. The District Advisory Board has created the Budget before you to meet the 2021 Budget proposal proposes overall expenditures and fund transfers of $1,593,396, and overall revenue and overall revenues of $1,162,707. Of these revenues, the district will generate approximately $923,107 through the levy of four mills, a real property for general operating purposes. And it will generate approximately $175,000 from the imposition of a capital charge assessed on a lineal foot basis on properties adjacent to the Brighton, adjacent to Brighton Boulevard for the repayment of debt used to fund capital and capital enhancements along Brighton Boulevard. City staff has reviewed the budget and work plan and recommends it for approval. Tracy Will is here tonight on behalf of the district to answer any questions as well. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Michael. We have two individuals or actually we have two individuals signed up to speak. The first one is you, Michael. So for the for the public hearing, do you just want to introduce yourself again? And I know you're available for questions. Sure. Michael Kerrigan available here for questions. Very good. And our second speaker is Jesse Paris. Council members, Jesse Bishop and I live in District eight, in Christopher Council member Christopher Hammett's district and I represented down the homicide row next door, actually moved for self defense by the maximum name for social change as well as the party of Colorado and Mile High. Moose and I will be the next November 2023. I have a few questions for the board member. Why is the level so low for this proposed business improvement district? Earlier tonight, we had a discussion about the five point the school improvement district and the fact that they are paying such a high level levy and comparison to other business improvement districts. So I would like to know why the lobbyists follow the windmills and. Is this money being used to also sleep on house neighbors from this colonized area that is now known as Rhino? It's the marketplace. Answer that question. I would really appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you, Jesse. That concludes our speakers questions from members of council. All right. Seen no questions from members of council. The Public Caring for Council Resolution 1267 is closed. Comments by Members of Council. All right. Seen no hands raised for comments of members of council. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. Like I said, America, I. Clark. I. Flynn. I. Herndon. I. He writes I. Cashman. I can eat. I am. Ortega, I. I. Sawyer. I. Torres. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 13 Eyes. 13 Eyes. Resolution 1267 has been adopted. Council is now convened as the board of directors of the Denver 14th Street General Improvement District. Councilmember Flynn. Will you please put Resolution 1268 on the floor?

A RESOLUTION providing an honorary designation of Thomas St between 1st Ave N and 2nd Ave N as “Lenny Wilkens Way.”

SeattleCityCouncil_09202021_Res 32019

Agenda item five. Resolution 32019 providing an honorary designation of Thomas Street between First Avenue North and Second Avenue North as Lenny Wilkins Way. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted. Thank you so much, Councilmember Peterson. You were the chair of this committee. I'm going to hand it over to you to provide the committee's report. We thank you, council president, colleagues. This is the resolution we discussed earlier in our Agenda two for the honorary designation of Leonie Wilkins Way. Appreciate Leonie Wilkins joining us and the many callers who during public comment. I have no further comments to add to what I already said earlier. Thank you so much. Are there any additional comments on the resolution? If you do, please try to use the raise the hand feature so I don't receive. Since I'm on my phone scanning the room quickly, I don't see any hands raised purposes called the vote on the option of the resolution. Why? That's. Strauss. Yes. Herbold. Yes. SUAREZ Yes. LEWIS Yes. MORALES Yes. Let's get a high. PETERSEN Yes. ZAHN Gonzalez high 97, unopposed. The resolution is adopted and the terrible sign it will occur affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Will the clerk please read the short title of item six into the record? Agenda item six Constable 120163 relating to the satellite department adding a new section to Chapter 21.49 Sunset. On this approach, establish the Renewable Cluster Program. The committee recommends that the bill be passed as amended. Excuse me. That the bill passed.

AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle’s Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) program; adopting an updated Strategic Plan; adopting a local designation of Seattle’s Center City as a “Growth and Transportation Efficiency Center” as defined by RCW 70.94.528; and amending Sections 25.02.030, 25.02.035, 25.02.040, 25.02.050, 25.02.055, 25.02.070, 25.02.080, and 25.02.090 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

SeattleCityCouncil_08052019_CB 119581

Constable 119521 really into Seattle commute troop reduction program adopting an updated strategic plan adopting a local designation of Seattle City Center, Center, City as a growth and transportation efficiency center. The committee recommends the bill pass. Cast Member O'Brien Thank you. This is an update to the troop reduction program in the city of Seattle. That's a program that's authorized by state legislature requires businesses with more than 100 employees to participate in a creative reduction program. Seattle is a partner with the county and downtown Seattle Association. Through the commute, Seattle does a lot of great work with that. This legislation does a lot of updating and setting some new targets. Some of the transportation modes that were in place just a few years ago were during the last update to the commuter troop reduction program, are in place today, I should say, didn't exist then specifically tenses. And so there's a number of clean up things to make that work better. I want to just applaud and commend the staff staff who continue to do great work on commuter production and also the team at commute Seattle. This legislation will help them continue to do their great work and I believe we need those teams to be doing even greater work in light of the climate crisis we're facing. Thank you very much. Any questions or comments that please call the role on the passage of the bill? Pacheco I. So want I SRA Gonzalez Herbold Suarez Mosquera. I. O'Brien. High. President Harrell nine in favor and unopposed. The bill passed. Sure was. Sign it. Please read the 12th agenda item.

Recommendation to adopt Specifications No. RFP AP15-153 and authorize City Manager to execute a contract, and any amendments thereto not exceeding the authorized amount, with ABM Parking Services, of Los Angeles, CA, for airport parking operations and management at the Long Beach Airport, in an annual amount not to exceed $1,054,122, with an annual increase no greater than the Consumer Price Index adjustment, authorize a 25 percent contingency in the amount of $263,531, for a period of three years, with the option to renew for two additional one-year periods, at the discretion of the City Manager. (District 5)

LongBeachCC_02162016_16-0139

Motion carries. Item 15 Report from Long Beach Airport Recommendation to execute a contract with ABM Parking Services for airport parking operations and management at the Long Beach Airport in an annual amount not to exceed $1 million. City District five Councilman Mongo. So I'm hoping that the staff report includes the $40,000 a month we'll be saving. Brian Francis will give that staff report. Awesome. Good evening there, Garcia. Members of council this evening were requesting city council approval to enter into contract negotiations with ABM Parking Services to provide airport parking operations and management of the airport's public parking facilities. These operations comprise lot A, Lot B and the employee parking lots. The airport worked with the purchasing department and advertised a request for proposals on August 27th, 2015 of nearly 4000 potential proposals. 37 download of the RFP for the local outreach was executed via the purchasing department as well. Eight proposals were received on October 15th, 2015. Each complete proposal was evaluated by a selection committee based on demonstrated competence, experience and performance of comparable engagements. Reasonableness of cost expertize and availability of key personnel, financial stability and conformance with the RFP terms. The committee determined that ABM Parking Services of Los Angeles, California offered the best proposal to provide the service at Long Beach Airport. ABM operates at airports nationwide, across the spectrum in terms of size. It is provided parking management services at an airport for the past decade and has maintained a good level of customer service throughout. The intent to award was posted by the Purchasing Department on January 12th, 2016 and no protests were received by the January 17th deadline. The contract is for a period of three years and an amount not to exceed $1,054,122, with a 25% contingency in the amount of $263,531. Requesting authorization of a 25% contingency as we feel it is the appropriate and necessary amount to accommodate additional services requested of ABM during the life of this agreement, which may include software upgrades, replacement of equipment, staffing, augmentation and unforeseen maintenance and repairs, among other things. And it's Councilwoman Mongo. I mentioned at the beginning of this item, the current contract amount or the current amount that we're paying on an annual basis is roughly $1.5 million. And again, as presented to you this evening, this contract is for a three year period of three years and an amount not to exceed $1,054,122 per year. So that would be a savings over the current arrangement. And that concludes my staff report. So I want to thank you for your work on this. I know that this hadn't been scheduled and or executed in quite a long time. I feel that in the amount of time we've been working together, we've been reconciling many issues that hadn't been touched in quite a long time, and I hope to wrap many of those up shortly. I know that there were questions related to the proposal and the lack of innovation and or technology in it. But I will say that while I wish there was more technology, I think that while the airport is running in the lean as it can possibly be, I think that the movement towards a reduction in cost is really a good step in the right direction. I think that's the way that the bid should be cherished and that since it is only a three year, that the airport will look very different in three years, hopefully in terms of the economy and hopefully oil prices and we'll see what that looks like. And then perhaps people will be driving their cars and parking them at the airport again, which will then increase our revenue in parking, which is currently down. So while I was in many discussions today with airport stakeholders and residents who live near the airport specifically asking about those technologies, I think at this time this is the prudent way to go. And I will be asking my colleagues to support this item. Thank you, Councilwoman Mongo. Councilman Austin. Yes. Thank you very much. I am to pleased to see that this will this contract will actually save us as a city. But I think it saves us as an airport because as I understand it, the revenues for this, for the airport parking stays within the airport fund, is that correct? Yes, sir, that's correct. All right. So there is no tangible benefit to the general fund for this contract, right? That is correct. The all the revenues generated from parking services, as well as other revenue generation on airport remain at airport. Aside from the various arrangements we have with other city departments for for services rendered. Okay. Thank you. I'll be supportive of this because I think it's a prudent move for the airport, but I just wanted to make that distinguishable difference. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any public comment on item 50? CNN members cast your vote. Basically alone, though. I mean. Yes. Motion carries. Item 16 report from police recommendation to receive and file the application of the breakfast bar for a premise. The premise and person to person transfer of an ABC license at 78 Atlantic Avenue District two.

Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code Chapter XXX to Comprehensively Update Citywide Off-Street Parking and Loading Space Regulations and Make Conforming Changes to Other Zoning Code Sections, as Recommended by the Planning Board. (Planning, Building and Transportation 20962700)

AlamedaCC_11022021_2021-1401

County Public to consider introduction of ordinance amending the Individual Code. Chapter 32 Comprehensively update city wide off street parking and loading space regulations and make conforming changes to other zoning code sections as recommended by the Planning Board. All right. And I see Allan Chai, Andrew Thomas, Brian McGuire, who's taken the lead on this. Welcome, everyone. Thank you. Council member. Mayor and council members. I'm going to turn this over to Allan Tai and Brian McGuire, who have done all the heavy lifting on this important code amendment. This is something that the city council has been asking for and looking for for quite a while. And so we're really pleased to have finally been able to bring it to you tonight. Thanks, Brian. We'll do the honors of giving you the presentation. Thank you. All right. Good evening, Mr. McGuire. Good evening, Mayor. As the Ashcraft and members of the City Council, Brian McGuire from the Planning Building and Transportation Department. Item seven C is the introduction of an ordinance to comprehensively update citywide off street parking and local space regulations and make conforming changes to other zoning code sections as recommended by the Planning Board. It's worth noting that in addition to hearing about these proposed changes, if we have time, you'll hear these changes are for private off street parking, but you'll also be hearing about parking management in the public realm. Item seven if you can hopefully get there, I'll try to be expeditious. Parking is not a new issue for alameda. Council is taking a number of previous actions leading up to today. The Alameda Point zoning code adopted in 2014 was one big change. Tonight's changes cover the entire city, except for Alameda Point, where we are not proposing any changes at this time. The 2018 Transportation Transportation Choices Plan Project number eight is a near-term high priority item is to update parking policies for new development to reduce future congestion. Associated with. Growth. Additionally, last but not least, the Climate Action and Resiliency Plan calls for the elimination of minimum parking requirements and establishment of parking maximums. The car also specifically calls for promoting electrification of our transportation sector. With the types of requirements in the ordinance before. You tonight. We started this year the public process at the Commission on Persons with Disabilities in June to discuss the needs for accessible parking and how to prevent impacts on people with disabilities while still pursuing our transportation and climate goals. Planning Board held a study session also in June, followed by the Transportation Commission in July, which discussed the amendments and unanimously recommended adoption of the proposed changes. Finally, on September 27th, Planning Board gave unanimous recommendation to adopt the proposed changes in the ordinance today. And that brings us here to City Council to introduce this ordinance. The graphic you see on the slide shows what one and a half parking spaces and the associated sort of dry bile space. Takes up in reference to, say, a typical two bedroom apartment. Just to give you a sense of the just from from a sheer space point of view, you know, how much space parking parking needs can can take up in any any project. Studies can show some of the benefits of eliminating minimum parking requirements, such as reducing auto trips and overall congestion, promoting shift to more sustainable transportation modes , and perhaps most importantly, reducing the cost of housing. We have several goals in crafting the ordinance. We aimed for a code update that reflects the current City City Council policy objectives. Has an equitable approach in how we provide parking for people with disabilities and adopts aggressive but reasonable requirements. For electric vehicle charging capabilities. This table also in your staff report just show some local data illustrating recently approved projects with the parking that the existing the current code would have required and the the reductions that the planning board finally approved. So you. See 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit is is common planning. Board has reduced requirements. On hotels to allow for a little less than one parking space per room and so on. Table A from the ordinance shows us the maximum allowable. Off street parking in the proposed changes. Exceeding these ratios in this table would require an administrative use permit that gives the city a chance to make sure that a project adding more parking than is typical is beneficial and mitigations can be required if necessary. Our goal with the ordinance was to eliminate the minimum parking requirements without reducing the overall supply, current or future of accessible parking, which serves as a mobility lifeline for certain folks in our community. So staff proposes maintaining a minimum standard and new parking facilities for disabled parking, which exceeds what the California building code requires. Here we're looking at a visual representation of the proposed electric vehicle parking requirements. This is. Also one thing called for. In the car. You can see townhomes and single family homes with private garages would require a level two EV ready parking space in each private garage. That essentially means like your typical 240 volt outlet, like a dryer plug. Ready to. Go for your EV. Multifamily would need to have at least 25% of those level two EV ready spaces and an additional 25% of level. One road ready spaces, which is the lower sort of voltage typical. Electrical wall outlet. We have proposed 10% of commercial parking spaces. New commercial parking spaces have a level two charger installed and places where most people park all day. Like an office to have an additional 30% of spaces capable capable of being upgraded to a level two with minimal additional cost by having the electrical panel capacity and conduit already in place. These numbers represent a first attempt at striking the balance between accelerating the electrification of our transportation sector and managing cost burdens in concert with affordable housing and economic development goals. We would anticipate evaluating these numbers on an ongoing basis. To see if we are getting it right. This ordinance codifies what has been implemented on a project by project basis. The last ten or 15 years to try and mitigate congestion impacts from new development. We have proposed some simplification of the bike parking requirements and adding some clarifying requirements to make sure long term parking bike parking spaces we are providing are usable to residents and employees of the projects. Staff is recommending that you, the City Council, introduce the ordinance to comprehensively update citywide off street parking and loading space regulations and staff is here myself, Andrew Thomas, Allen, Ty and our consultant on all things electrification, Farhad Farman are here to answer any questions you might have. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. McGuire. Council Do we have any clarifying questions from staff? Councilmember Harry Spencer. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Maguire, for your presentation. I appreciate all your slides and whatnot. I want to go back to the staff report and background. It has refers to other cities and having excess parking from developments. I think San Diego, L.A., UCLA, there are different ones, but I didn't see anything for the city of Alameda. Has there been any analysis that the city of Alameda housing developments and where we are trying to right size the number of units. I'll. I guess I can start and then Andrew can jump in. And I'm not sure that we have, you know, like academic studies of our existing parking. But I think. You know, Andrew. Comprise speak to some some anecdotes locally. Well, yeah, we, um, I'm blanking on the name. It was the group, a Bay Area group did a survey of Bay Area communities. It was not just Alameda, it was also Berkeley and others where they were basically going into existing residential projects and just observing, like how much of the parking was actually being used. A couple Alameda projects were included in that study. It was about five or six years ago and the results were very similar from other cities, which is they found that in a lot of the newer residential projects that, you know, that not all the parking was being used, basically indicating that we were over parking some of our residential projects. I think the Brian's, you know, Brian had to move fast. The point that were that he was making with some of those slides is. The Planning Board has been working to try to figure out what the right amount of parking is and what that slide that he was showing of all our prior projects, both hotels, residential, commercial. We have not we have not been requiring the total amount of parking required in the ordinance. They've been doing parking waivers regularly to try to right size the parking amount for each project. What this ordinance does essentially is use that information as as our maximum. So we don't see that this ordinance from a parking perspective is going to have a huge change in the amount of parking it's built with each project. What we're saying now is, hey, if you want to do more than that, which which is what we've determined is about right for these uses over the course of the last five or six years of of planning board hearings about individual projects, well, then we're going to have to have a different conversation. Why do you need more than that? And how should we mitigate it? But if you want to do what that number is, or a little bit less than that. You're good to go. K Councilmember harry spencer. Could we go back to the chart? The director thomas is speaking to randy. Can you take us to that slide? You know, the one with the existing projects show Del Monte and some of the hotels. That's it. So 1825 Park Street. What's there. Now? That's a small building. That's a small property right down by Clement. And it's a coffee shop. Coffee culture. No, it's. Okay. No, it's not that. It's not that far down. It's just a few doors up the street from that existing, existing property. No, no, no. Excuse me. No parking. I mean, the parking there. No access to the street. So they want to redevelop their property. The part that the zoning code said they needed to have nine parking spaces, they couldn't fit any on the property. I mean, that's a that's an issue. And there's another one on Webster Street, 1929, that's down by the roadway in right there by the Cross Army trail. We have a number of properties in Alameda, especially on parking lot, the street. You can't find a single parking space. Those are two, I think, you know, outliers. Those are situations where the planning board didn't require any parking spaces because if you put in a curb cut in a parking lot, you wouldn't have been able to build the building. Well, my question was commercial. Residential. I think it's commercial. No. Yeah, I'm sorry. There was a both commercial. Both commercial? It's actually this scooter. I believe it's a scooter importer. No, it's across the street from them. It's if I may, it's next door to the USA. Kung Fu, I believe it is, yes. Remodeling a sort of existing site. And it's a mixed use, very small mixed use building and sort of one storefront wide with a little bit of residential above some commercial on the ground floor. Okay. So thank you. So it's commercial, right? Can we agree? It's commercial. It's got residential upstairs. There is a residential upstairs commercial downstairs. I think it's one unit, Brian. I think maybe that's correct. It's one unit. Of residential upstairs. Correct. Thank you, Mr. Tai. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So the company that. That is residential and it's. Yes. The 1929 Webster. Commercial. Okay. Internal terminals. Residential. Right. And that's why it's getting those spaces. So I wanted to point out that when you look at this, most of these are, in fact, not residential. And the ones that are actually do have other than apparently one unit, 1825. Well, the commercial Lexus commercial home, too. I mean, those are all commercial all the way down to the bottom. 1435 is residential mixed use. Okay. So right. So this shows that actually we are normally we have been assigning parking spaces for residential units. Then if we could go to the next slide. Okay. So this is now. If I understand correctly and if you can clarify the accessory dwelling unit, we're going to if they want more than one off street parking per unit. Then they go and they get some kind of special permit or something. They have that? Yeah. Essentially they have to ask for special permission. All right. The idea of going to maximums is to establish a maximum amount, say, on telling everybody you can build as many as you want up to this limit. If you want to go above that limit, then we need to have a conversation and discuss why it's necessary for you to go above the max, the maximum. And this this is an idea and it can have like up to 1200 square feet, three benefits. That's something. So you can have three bedrooms and most you get one parking space unless you get some special permission from staff. That's right. And the mayor and under. State law, a state eight EU law cities cannot require any parking if the adu is within a half mile of transit. And when we look at the Alameda map. Other than Crete in circle and harbor in Harbor Bay, every every property in Alameda would meet that state criteria for no parking for 80 use. Thank you. That completes my questions. All right. Thank you. The you know, counsel, maybe before we go on, it's 1046 and we have to take that vote. About what? COUNCILMEMBER That's right. Go ahead and take the, the, the words out of my mouth. We have got these remaining items seven D, seven G, seven H, and then there are seven referrals. There's something about the numbers to. Move the we go we re we go into a midnight and we get through as much as humanly possible. Is there a second for that? Councilmember Desai. That's the second. Okay. Madam Clerk, may we have a roll call? And this one takes four votes, correct? Councilmember de Herrera. Spencer? No. Next light. I Vela. No mayor, as you know. And that motion fails to two. Three. Okay. Want to craft another motion? We could. Well, we need to finish this one up, and I think we might be able to do that. Madam, quickly, we have many public speakers on this item. Just one. Okay, so. Now to. Guess, it's usually the trigger. Well, we are almost at 11:00, so we could just finish this one. Or for those who voted no, do you want to propose something else or do you just want to? And at 11:00 or when this item finishes. Cats over here. Spencer, go ahead. It's my clarification because I haven't announced it. So under Council Communications, will we be able to do that if we complete this item, which is a hard stop at 11:00? Oh. It depends. Yeah, yeah, it depends on how you fashion your vote to continue. But it's no new regular item. You have to vote to hear any additional items. But you can continue through those other sections and you can establish a hard stop time if. You so desire. But if the clock runs out before we finish voting, although I started a little early to give us time, we just ended 11, is that correct? You know, you would finish this item and then you would continue to those other, you know, non agenda item sections. Right. Okay. Vice Mayor Vella, anything from you? I would be open to hearing item seven tonight after this one. So I'll make a motion to just extend the meeting no later than midnight, but just to hear item seven. And what about when. You conclude this and conclude this item? Because I said, what about the like council communications and whatnot? I'm fine with that, including council communications. Okay. All right. So two, I just would. Like to be able to tell our staff or seven age that we're not going to hear. Tonight because. To cut them loose if necessary. Okay. So so that motion is to hear, to finish hearing seven C and seven G. Council Communications 77. Sorry. Are we? We're sorry. 70. Yeah, we. We're on air. We're going to also write. Right. Mm hmm. Okay. All right. In heart, stop at midnight or when it's finished, whichever comes first. Okay. Is there a second? I just want to make sure we're talking about seven G, which was the police. Yes, I'm okay. I'm happy the second. Okay. We've got a motion maybe got a second. Maybe we have a real cover. Please remember Jason. Yes. Spencer. I knocked right. By the. Fella by. Mayor as. I. That carries by five eyes. Okay. Thank you. Okay, everybody, back to our clarifying questions. Councilor for her. Spencer, had you completed your. Yes, thank. You. You had. Okay. Anyone else with clarifying questions? I. Okay, counselor. Everyday day I. Then I've got my clarifying question. So in table A under dwelling unit, the maximum number of bases. If this is adopted for a dwelling unit and that's a second row is 1.5 units. That's that's correct. Right. So that's correct. But currently. And 30. Dash 7.6. The minimum amount of dwelling units. And it depends on the square footage of of a unit less than 3000 square feet is two. Is that correct? And the dwelling units for greater than 3000 square feet is three. So that's the minimum amount of off street parking. Correct? That's correct. And just just to clarify, if there is a single family home that develops, any fraction can get rounded up without having to go through any process. So this one home, the effective number. Would be two in this. Case. Okay. But. So what I'm looking at, though, is it the maximum number even? I mean, assuming we can round it up is less than what's already in place. Although what's in place is the minimum okay, at least for dwelling units, especially for dwelling units. More than 3000 square feet in size. Also on table, on slide table A, it has hotels, motels. So the maximum number of spaces is one off street parking per guest room. That's what's proposed and what's in the current. Is one and a quarter per room. And but for our hotels within community the commercial districts. It's it ranges from 1 to 1 and a quarter, although I don't think there's going to be any hotels in community commercial district. So. So for the hotel motel, what's in the ordinance right now is one and a quarter. And what's being proposed would be lessening that to one. That's correct. As a maximum. One. Maximum. Okay. And all the hotels that have been approved in Alameda in the last ten years have been approved with .83 about parking spaces per room. I mean, if you think about it, typical hotel room. How many people bring two cars to a. To share one room? Not very often. So what? What all the studies have shown and what all the recent approvals in Alameda for all the hotels in the last ten years. They've all hovered around .83, like what is actually been proposed by the hotels and what have we actually approved? About 23 spaces per room. And when they're approved or or when requests come in for something lower than what's in the ordinance or in that schedule, they go to the ordinance. Right. And that would be 30 Dash 713, which is currently reductions in parking requirements, which kind of lays out. Kind of approach that you would take for justifying any reductions. Currently the minimum, which is what the current set in the new system. If you want to do less, it's okay. We you don't need special permission to do less. You need special permission to do more. Yeah, but if I think. Well, we're always concerned about is people not doing enough parking. So if you set the maximum. Right now, if you set the maximum lower than what was what was there before, you're basically setting in place a process that makes it easier to come in with lower. I think the what we've just what we've learned over the last ten years is that actually people. In particular on the commercial. We've often been trying to push them lower and lower and they're like, Look, I need at least this amount of parking. So what we've ended up for is what we've ended up approving is something very close to what the. The lenders who are who are financing the project are demanding. I mean, banks will not allow I mean, sometimes I've been in meetings where people are like, why do you need so much parking? And the answer is because my banker is requiring it. That's what I mean. So we very often don't have a situation where staff is saying, hey, we need you know, you're not giving us enough parking. It's very often that the developers of these projects seem to be financially feasible. This is the right amount of parking. And what the conversation has been over the last ten years is your minimums in your parking code are way too high. The right amount is about this for hotels. .83 for the residential, about 1.5. If when we've tried to push them lower, they've pushed back on us and said, no. We've had this conversation a lot at the planning board where the plan was like, Hey, we'd like to do less parking. And the developer is saying, No, no, no, no, I can't do less. To make it financially viable, I need to do about this amount. So I guess the point that I'm getting out though is simply that it seems to me what the table prior to table eight shows is that we have a system in place that already is flexible to accommodate when someone wants a lower standard. Okay. But that's that's. Yeah, yeah. No, that's that's true. That's true. The problem is we're forcing every project through this process of conversation to get a waiver. And that's what we're trying to avoid. We're trying to streamline the process, make it cheaper and more effective and, you know, just less costly for particularly for housing. I mean, that's one of our major goals. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Desai. So I have just one question for staff. I really like the attention paid to requiring charging infrastructure for electric vehicles. We hear a lot from residents, especially residents of apartment buildings, that there just aren't enough places if they have an EV where they can charge. So I noticed that this proposal has been through a number of different boards and commissions. Public Utility Board wasn't among them. So what are the implications for AMP, our municipally owned and very clean green electric utility of these expanded EV charging facilities and infrastructure? I'll take the first crack at this and find out about it. Mr. Maguire. Yes. If Farhad has anything to add after this, I'll defer to him. We did consult with AMP's staff on these plans, and one element of the ordinance does allow something that's called and the term is its load management system. Right. Which allows you to sort of not if you're building a parking structure, not have to overbuild the panel to handle everybody at full power 24 hours a day. And so we did work with AMP staff on this. But you're right, we did not go to the pub and there are some there are some cost implications in terms of cost to build. But I think AMP expressed, you know, this is comparable if not a little bit. Of a reach from what recent projects are doing. So I think they are. You know, anticipating they seem comfortable with these levels. And may be eager. For the customers. And so AMP is comfortable that with the transmission lines we have and our sources of clean green power, they will be able to adequately accommodate these this expanded charging infrastructure. I can put those words in their mouth, but they did have an opportunity and sort of had input and didn't express any concern when we did discuss this with them. Okay. And I mean, I guess we could also probably assume that this doesn't all happen at once overnight. I you know, it would be lovely to have had that reference in the staff report, but thank you so much for bringing bringing that up. Mr. Titus, you want to add something to that? Yeah. May I add that? So. So the parking spaces and infrastructure would not just happen automatically. I mean, the ordinance would apply to with new development or new construction of parking spaces, and that would typically be reviewed by AMP. Right? No, I understand that it was more than just the capacity. I mean, I don't think. Well. For capacity issues as well. Yeah. Okay. Thank you for that. Okay. Any other clarifying questions? Counsel Then let's move on to public comment. Madame Clerk. We have five speakers, so they each get 3 minutes unless we get a couple more. The first is Jack Bowling. All right. Good evening, Speaker Bowling. Hi there. Yeah. I think this looks great. I want to thank staff, and I want to thank them for taking some of the comments that I made and adopting those into this with one of the committees. This came before in the past. I think this is a great step in the right direction. I think moving away from mandatory minimums and moving towards mandatory maximums without forcing discretionary review on every single project that could be built with less, because we know that adding a parking space to a project increases the cost of that project by 80 grand per parking spot . And when you're thinking about housing, that's terrible, especially about affordable housing, and especially in the summer, we like to complain about traffic as much as I don't think we have that much encouraging more cars more than we need without going for that. That review makes more sense to me than requiring more parking. That's just going to encourage more cars and be worse on the environment, and especially where we have places where we can build near transit. We can discourage car use as much as possible, but when we do, we have clauses in there for at least easy requirements for 25% in commercial areas. So I think it's a great plan. I really support this. I think staff did a great job on this and I fully, fully support this. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker. Good evening, Speaker Reid. Good evening again, Madam Mayor, and city council members. I'm weighing in to oppose the proposal for maximum standards for parking. This seems like a workaround that does not adequately address the fact that parking is an issue in many areas of Alameda, and a lot of residents do rely on vehicles as a mode of transportation. It seems as if new developments especially should accommodate for sufficient parking needs, as the city is also proposing an increased density in their general plan, in some cases up to 60 units per acre. It seems reasonable to increase parking instead of limiting it. I also heard Mr. Thomas State at the transportation meeting just a couple of days ago that parking is going to be an issue as we increase our population. So here it seems like we have some type of conflict here regarding equity by by unbundling parking on new developments. It's likely that people with less means may opt out of purchasing a parking spot further, creating an inadequate and inequitable gap. As a result, they may have to park in the street and walk further from their homes. And for many individuals and families, especially as they're bringing their children home, or maybe they also have disabled family members or people with limited mobility issues, this may be a burden. So I believe that it's more responsible to close that gap and and provide the parking that that's necessary for our residents. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Denise Trapani. Good evening. Speaker tiffany. Thank you. Mayor ashcraft and council members. I just want to provide bipoc almeida's very enthusiastic support for the introduction of this ordinance tonight, and I hope you all hope you'll move forward with it. One of the hard conversations we're going to need to have is, as the last speaker just alluded to, is as we increase our density , we're simply not going to be able to provide parking spaces for, you know, every single adult in Alameda to store their cars around the island. And as we've made amazing progress in developing additional transit options for folks with the introduction of the new line 78 to the to the new ferry terminal and across Alameda Trail, we're just providing more and more options, other options for people who want to get out of cars to choose other ways of getting around. We're in a climate emergency where we're adopting Vision Zero. You know, these are the kind of changes we need to make in order to to meet our reduction in vehicle miles traveled, go also to strongly support the introduction of this ordinance and want to thank staff for their work on this and hopefully you'll move forward with it. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker. Drew Dara Abrams. Good evening, speaker dara Abrams. Hello again, mayor and council members. True Dara Abrams on the East End. And I want to offer one example. I mentioned I work at a park in Blanding. It's actually in the building at 1926. Park Park is esquina features, coffee cultures, nice, vibrant, new busy coffee shop and a building with zero on site parking spots. The site works because there are no office off street parking spots and it's a bit of a wedge right there. And the the the owner and his team did a great job figuring out how to make that site work. I'm not here to suggest that, you know, every commercial property should now have zero parking spots. But I think that's a great example of what can be built when the market has some more flexibility. I am hardly a libertarian, but parking policy is one of the few aspects where I think our city will actually benefit from more direct influences by market forces here. I think the city does have other programmatic means to make parking available easier to use, easier to pay for. I know you all have another agenda item on that, and I would encourage the city to adopt this policy and think ahead to other ways to improving the experience for everyone to access parking that does exist so less about ensuring some grand unlimited supply and more about maximizing the availability of what is built and making it really it is also can get a bigger goals like equity goals. You have a you have meters you can use and other means to make the parking that is available there accessible to all of the folks who need it. So thank you to staff for working on this policy that can really help the city join on the same good company in other cities that have adopted similar policies. Thank you. Thank you. And our next speaker. This is our last speaker, Jim Strelow. Good evening. Speaker Stellar. Good evening. I have a problem with how the presentation was presented. It has to do with slide number ten, that of charging requirements because it says residential, private, dedicated garage level two ev ready. Yeah. For what kind of project for the casual citizen looking at that presentation. They would fear that gee if I do some sewer work or change my fence or cut down a tree and need a permit, all of a sudden I'm going to have to put in any level two charger because of the way the presentation was worded. Now I agree. Buried in the agenda description is some note that it has to be, you know, ten or more, some number or whatever. But it's not being described very clearly to the average citizen what the residential requirement is, because there's nothing in the slides that help clarify, you know, so that maybe citizen residences will consider not doing projects because they're fearing that they'd have to install a level two charger. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. And madam, you said that was our last speaker. A recap. That was. Last. Okay. And with that, we will close public comment. But I wonder if I could ask someone and staff to just clarify. Mr. Strelow raised a question that I think others might be interested in. Could someone just. Mr. THOMAS Yeah, just real quick. This is off street parking, so if you're building a parking lot. These these these these requirements get triggered if you're putting an electric circuit in your existing home. It does not. So new buildings, new dwelling units, expansions of existing buildings. You know, this is about what your requirements are. If you are essentially building these types of things and you are proposing parking, then if you are going to be building new parking, we want you to go to we believe it's appropriate to require that you put in EV charging. Just one other just big picture comment just to sort of relieve some of the anxiety about parking. The average household in Alameda has 1.3 cars. Observation shows that a lot of people use their parking garages that we require them. They use it for things other than parking their cars. They use it for storing their stuff. But that's just observation. The data is 1.3 cars per household. What we're saying is if you want to do more than 1.5 parking spaces. That's that raises some questions. So we feel like the 1.5 not only is it very consistent with everything that the planning board has been recommending and approving of it, and the council has been approving over the last five or six years, it also is fits. It really reflects the actual data of car ownership. Among Alameda households in Alameda. So this is not a radical ordinance by any means. Okay. You'll let us know when you bring radical ordinance working. We'll want you flying clear in the presentation, please. All right. Okay. So. Okay, so back to I is getting a little later. Okay. So council discussion. Councilmember Harry Spencer. Thank you, Mayor. So I'd like to go back to the building address that's listed on the slide that we were talking about. Is 1825 part. However, from the conversation from the speakers, I'm thinking we're actually talking about 1926, which is where coffee culture is. There's there's two projects, both on Park Street, both on the same side of Park Street. Within a block of each other. There's coffee, coffee cultures at the corner of Park and Clement, which the last public speaker was talking about. He has an office there. They have no parking at all? No. 1926, then. One block up from that next door to the karate place on the corner. Is another project that was approved which is much smaller. Ground floor commercial one one unit upstairs, also zero parking. So if I may. Mr. Maguire wanted to add something. We'll be right back. Mr. Maguire. I just want to add it's possible that there's a typo in it and that I should have said 1820. Park Street across the street. Okay. Even numbers are on one side and on the other guy. I defer to you, Councilmember PEREIRA. You probably have that right. I apologize. Hey, thank you, Mr. Maguire, because I want to make sure we're talking about the right place, that. We have reached agreement that odd numbers are on one side of the street and even around the other. That's why we've got three. Members of. Planning building. Okay. Jeff knows parking, but we don't know how to address the numbers. No worries. We've got to get back to you, Councilmember. So I would ask that that address be corrected in that staff report. So when people are looking at the sort of course, they can figure it out. But in regards to the speaker that spoke about coffee cultures, I go there. I recommend people try it and whatnot, but I park across the way. The Dragon Rouge and other people do too, because Dragon Rouge doesn't open until 1130 and that's more of a opens a little later and goes into like nine or 10:00. And I think the other businesses don't open until like 10 a.m. probably at the earliest there that shopping center. Now that I'm suggesting other people do other people do do it. I see it. I see it because. Right, I go to there. And so if you're building a business but they're able to take advantage of other parking nearby. Right. That still you can't count on that. And so I think it's important that we keep that in mind because rest assured, people that go to coffee culture, many of them are in fact driving and they're parking somewhere and they're not parking at this structure because staff didn't require them to have it. But they are parking a car and they're lucky that Kitty Corner, you have Dragon Rouge in pretty good sized parking lot because I think coffee culture actually opens pretty early in the morning and so people can cross the street and but you can't count on that . And so I do have concerns about staff's recommendations, especially when your examples don't take into account the whole area. And the problem is, in fact, in some of these residential areas, we we absolutely do not have sufficient parking right now. We have people that have to circle around their neighborhood and try to find parking. It does it could it may very well not be on their street. And we have, for instance, on San Jose, we have these older homes that have been subdivided within. So you have, you know, there's multiple rentals and they do not have sufficient parking, but we do not under current law, you can add the ADU and in fact you can sell, you can subdivide your lot and up to 40 and up with four units instead of one. And, you know, where are these people going to park? And even if it's one point, whatever the number was, this is sensitive times is still a car. And I am concerned that this actually does not take into account the total impact. And I do have a question because. I looked at where we are and ridership on AC transit and BART right now post COVID and we had the prior item where it was very clear that we still support being outside. We are concerned about COVID, and I'm concerned that this item really doesn't speak to where we still are on ridership. I see transit currently the most recent report I could find July 20, 21. It is about 37% of what it was pre-COVID at and similar numbers for BART. The ridership is fluctuates. They they're very good. They show daily ridership and it's anywhere between 25 to 43% of what it was pre-COVID. So people at least here in the Bay Area here in Alameda, we are not back to using public transportation like we were. In fact, we also know this. There is a quote recently from MGC spokesperson October 5th, and they said topping 90% of pre-pandemic levels is the car ridership through the Bay Bridge. So we know that people that are commuting are actually driving a car, whereas before they were taking public transportation. And I think as long as we are still experiencing that COVID and people are not riding public transportation, in fact they are dramatically not. I do take BART, the parking garage at Fruitvale. You can show up any time of the day. You can park on the ground level outside. There are next to no vehicles there because people really are not back to ridership, public transportation, which means and we do know this, we know it's very hard to get a used car right now. It's very hard because guess what? People have actually bought cars that instead of using public transportation and they need to park those cars in our city because they have to park them somewhere. So I think that when I look at this, I don't think there's been any adjustment for the impact of what we're seeing in COVID. And I think that we have to assume people are not going to just get on. It's not happening. People are not back to using public transportation. I do support adding the Chargers and stuff. I think that's very important. We see that happening. I think that's great because it's actually very hard and very expensive to add after the fact. So I think that's a good idea. But I think these other numbers don't take into consideration where we are right now in a pandemic and the impacts in our neighborhoods. It is is not not what I think this reflects or will serve us. So I cannot support that those these are, I think, dramatic changes. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. Next, what I think I saw your hand up for. Yeah, I'd like to make a motion to approve the staff recommendation as written. I think the work was done really fantastic. I have no changes or tweaks. I'm just going to thank the staff for presenting the data that shows that these are not draconian. They actually support the existing conditions. I don't think we should be making long term, decades long policy based on a pandemic we're still in the middle of, and it supports the decision making that this council and previous councils have been supporting for the last 8 to 10 years. So with that, I'd like to move approval. Thank you. Great appreciation. Thank you. Driver second. Well, Vice Mayor Vela or Councilmember Desai. Anyone prepared to second or shall I? Okay. I was frozen. Oh, my goodness. Okay. Does she know that? Madam Clerk. Didn't I took notice? That took two snow. Thank you. Okay, Richard, thank you. In the interest of moving things along, I will happily second your motion and also second the appreciation to staff. I'm really excited about this. I think it's forward thinking where we should be. And I want to just comment really quickly. I counsel rehearsed Spencer you're absolutely correct that public transit has not come back yet from our pre-COVID ridership levels. It is starting to slowly and I will say I have rarely ever parked in the Fruitvale BART parking station because it's so easy to hop on AC Transit in Alameda. I'm kind of lazy if someone else could do the driving for me, I go for it and I just want the public to know that on a rainy day last week, maybe I had to go to San Francisco, hopped on AC Transit, went to Fruitvale, BART got on, BART went to the city. People were really good about wearing masks. One of my things, but honestly, transit at the BART station, on the platform, in the BART car, and there's not a lot of people because it was a little bit off commute peak hours, but it felt very safe and healthy and just, you know, couldn't have been easier. And then it at the end, when I was done with my appointment, I came back and it dropped me off in front of city hall, which is, you know, pretty, pretty sweet door to door service. And then the the coffee culture is I it's not that we're trying to do advertising, but it is. Mr. Thomas I was there the other day and I was remembering, do you remember the groundbreaking doing the groundbreaking? And then all of a sudden I was with a friend having coffee out in the courtyard the other day. We rode bikes, by the way, and they've got bike parking at the far end of the the outside courtyard there. But Marcel single, the owner, came along just to say hi and you know, he and his family live upstairs that is residential over retail and there's also office. I mean that's a really cool, cool development. And and as far as the parking, it is a bit challenging that spot. But I want everyone to know that that assisted living facility at the foot of Park Street that is actually getting a new roof, you might have noticed. And so right now, all the construction vehicles and equipment, they're staging them and storing them on the side of the building where the staff would normally park. So staff are parking on the street. So some of that will be eased. I mean, I, you know, Park Street Corridor, it's it's a bit of a challenge to park, but it's a little unusual right now. The point being Alameda is love their coffee and they find a way to get to these places and it's just really nice to have places to socialize and get caffeinated. So I saw this vice mayor and she's got her hand up. So. So you froze. So Councilwoman Knox White made the motion. I would have seconded, but we love your comments before we take a vote. Well, I was going to second and then I got kicked off of the zoom. So I could withdraw my second. If you. Really want to do it. It's okay. It's okay. No, I think, you know, in many cases, and especially on Park Street and some other quarters, there is ample parking lots and other parking alternatives, as well as a number of different ways to get to get to and from those locations. So, you know, I appreciate all of the staff work on this and all of the feedback that we've gotten. I'm ready to support this tonight. All right, Councilmember de thug. Thank you. You know, I think that in our ordinance, especially in 37.13, we do have a system in place right now that forces developers to come to city hall hat in hand to ask for lower parking standards. What's before us would make it easier for these developers to reduce parking. But. I think that the system we have in place right now is not that burdensome on developers especially. So there's no reason to change the system. And just one more comment on affordable housing. Again, the system we have in place right now even allows for a lessening of parking requirements in an effort to make housing more affordable . It's all right there in 30 dash 7.13. And the table that you saw demonstrates that. A lot of these developers, especially developers of big projects. Have been accommodated. So I'm not I don't see the compelling reason to to change what we have. We shouldn't make things easier for developers. Um, thank you. All right. So we've had a motion, we've had a cycle, we've had our comments made. We have a roll call vote, Madam Clerk. So we're British. I know. Where Spencer Knox. Is. Yes, yes. Yes. Mayor Ashcroft. Yes. That carries 3 to 2. All right. Very good. Thank you again, staff for all your hard work in bringing this forward. And we look forward to seeing it. Thank you, Brian. Yes. May I just please make sure to quick remark on the work. That staff did with the parking ordinance is. Fully supported by the State. Of California SB two planning grants. So with your approval tonight, the city would seek that reimbursement. So the cost has been paid for. Thank you. Please do. Thank you so much. All right. Yes. Okay. Okay. We need to move quickly. Council and staff, because we have a hard stop at midnight and we want to hear this other very important item. All of our items are important, but we have item seven G. So Madam quick, why don't you introduce that while we do a little moving of moving of screens here, if you would, please. Of course. Recommendation to authorize the Chief of Police to update Section 310 of existing Alameda Police Department Policy Manual to conform to existing best practices and statutory requirements mandating notification of California, Department of Justice and certain officer involved shootings. And we have the police chief and captain here tonight and we are promoting them. Excellent. It will be here for. You are welcome, Chief Geraci. Welcome, Captain Emmett. We're happy to see you. I know we're keeping you out a little late, but.

AN ORDINANCE relating to commute trip reduction; amending Ordinance 10733, Section 1, as amended, and K.C.C. 14.60.010, Ordinance 10733, Section 2, as amended, and K.C.C. 14.60.020, Ordinance 10733, Section 3, as amended, and K.C.C. 14.60.030, Ordinance 10733, Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 14.60.040, Ordinance 10733, Section 5, as amended, and K.C.C. 14.60.050, Ordinance 10733, Section 6, as amended, and K.C.C. 14.60.060, Ordinance 10733, Section 6, as amended, and K.C.C. 14.60.070, Ordinance 10733, Section 8, as amended, and K.C.C. 14.60.080 and Ordinance 10733, Section 10, as amended, and K.C.C. 14.60.100, recodifying K.C.C. 14.60.010, K.C.C. 14.60.020, K.C.C. 14.60.030, K.C.C. 14.60.040, K.C.C. 14.60.050, K.C.C. 14.60.060, K.C.C. 14.60.070, K.C.C. 14.60.080, K.C.C. 14.60.100 and K.C.C. 28.94.110 and adding a new chapter to K.C.C. Title 28.

KingCountyCC_10172016_2016-0401

Thank you. And we will see you before next year because we have a lot of questions. And I. I love my TEDTalks, but there are some books I'd like to hear, too. All right. So now we're going to move on to three items that are our roads department. So we will be looking at proposed ordinance 2016, 404 11 and 401. So this cable you come up and then also our roads, people, if you want to come on up too, that would be great. All three of you can come on up this case. Please take it away. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will try not to contact you. I'm afraid I have a call today. I'm Lisa K Council staff. Today I'm talking about item 8/1, which is proposed ordinance 2016 zero 400, which is an update of Title 14 of the King County Code. I'm joined today with by the services director, Brenda Bauer, Deputy Director Jay Osborne and the county road engineer Rick Braider. My staff report begins on page 249 of your packet. There's also additional information that the executive provided, additional background information beginning on page 425 of your packet. Today's update is going to include or that I'm sorry, the update that will be brought to the course of at least two meetings is going to cover most policy and technical changes. Today, I'll be going over the policy changes as described on tables one and two on pages 252. 252 of your packet staff analysis is ongoing with respect to some of the changes to the road vacation provisions in Table two. And I'll be bringing you some of that information back to you at your November 7th meeting. Also at November 7th, I'll describe changes to the road design and construction standards that will be adopted by this ordinance and a striking amendment that has been developed by legal counsel. Your legal counsel in consultation with the panel. There are a couple of other things that are relevant to those Title 14 update that you'll be other types of legislation that you'll be seeing over the next weeks and months. Specifically early next year, you'll be seeing updates on chapters of Title 14 that deal with rights of way, the permit system for county property utilities on county right away, wireless communication facilities and utilities on county properties. Also you have legislation before you now. And as an update to King County Chapter 14 or Code Chapter 1470, which is the Transportation Concurrency Management Program that's been referred to this committee of the hall. You also have an update to County Code Chapter 1456, which is the NON-MOTORIZED program, and that will be before council in the context of the comprehensive plan. UPDATE Finally today, as item ten, you have proposed Ordinance 2016 0401, which moves a section of Title 14 to Title 28 having to do with. The commute trip reduction. So with all that, I'll come back now to table one on page 250 of your packet. These markets, these modifications would make policy changes. I said, as I said, to Title 14, and they're grouped in your staff in the staff report in four categories. Just for ease of review. There are two administrative changes. Three changes having to do with repealing provisions. Two provisions that establish new authority and four that modify regulations. Are we good to go on this? No, not really. So I'm the first one. So it's going to delete the requirement for the directors annual report. But the WEC says we have to have annual bridge reports. So if we have to do a bridge report, it seems to me that we should have a comprehensive report. So why are we deleting the annual report? If I can say that we will be what? I will be walking through each one of these with you, each one of the proposed changes. So when next time, as we speak. Now. Okay. All right. I will turn to Director Bauer to speak to the deletion of the annual report, as you said, which is the first administrative change. We've always submitted an annual bridge report to the council. And what were one of the things we were trying to do was to get rid of conflicts or repetition with state law. So where there is a state law that requires us to do something, then we you often get out of sync over time if you have a separate and close provision in county code. So is there something we can put in the county code that says that when you submit the state report that you submitted to us on the council so that that's what the state report does. Yes. Okay. All right. So if that's what we're doing, why are we changing this? Then what? Over time, a lot of what happened was that the provisions of state law were written also in county code. And to clean up the code because they get out of sync just even by a few words over time. You know, a good practice is not to repeat what's already in state law. In county code. And so I'm in the process of being in Title 14 right now. So I will have some other questions besides what's in here. But I'm not all the way done yet, so I'll say that. Go ahead. Okay, then the next administrative change is shifting responsibility for assessing the cost of sidewalk repair and reconstruction from the council to the King County DOT. Director, the the theory here the concept here was that you have all of the subject matter expertize contained at the at the departmental level and it provides an efficient way of centralizing that authorization. And I would ask Director Bower if she has anything to add to that. No. I think that the best practice for that sort of technical assessment is at the department level, rather than asking the council to assess costs on a repair project. Yes. Since that's not in our bailiwick, that would be good. Go ahead. Okay. Moving on to the repealed provisions. The first one is a provision that directs. It's an entire section speaking to install installation of public benches in the county right away. Actually, there are no public benches or any benches in the public rights of way, and this provision runs contrary to the desire to keep a clear zone area. So this would be stricken in the proposed update. So why do we ever think we were going to have benches in the right away? What was the thinking behind that? What was the year that that was from J. So I'm Jay Osborne, deputy director at ROADS. That legislation was from 1945, and there were issues with benches asking people to stop here, warning that there were concerns in the road going ahead. We no longer have benches and have not had benches in the right away for quite a while. So this is the first code clean up since 1994 at the Metro merger. So we're also going through and getting rid of some unused provisions like that one. Okay. So the horse and buggy time is a little different. Okay. Go ahead. Okay. Moving to the next one is actually deleting Section 14.38 of the King County Code, which allows for road closures and openings by petition. And this action would then repeal that section. As I said, the according to the road service staff, the provisions have never been used and that closing a road doesn't absolve the county of any of the maintenance responsibilities or toward liability. Moving to the next item. This would delete the mitigation payment system. The system right now is not generating significant revenue due to low development activity of the small. This the direct impacts would still be addressed through the super process and it repealing the system wouldn't affect the concurrency program or intersection standards. Okay. Questions. Keep going. Okay. The next to deal with or to establish new authority on page 251 emergency permits. This would be providing authority for the county road engineer to issue special use permit during disasters. When you close some of the roads, you're still going to need to be able to get emergency provisions and some emergency vehicles , possibly school busses across the roads. And this would allow the county road engineer specifically to do that. So being that we have some bridges that are at their weight bearing capacity, I'm really wanting to make sure that you have enough authority for any emergency. So as we go forward, maybe you and I are flying can talk about are there any other emergency powers that you need? And I had a conversation with somebody the other day about an emergency issue and a bridge, so we can talk about that offline. And I'd also like to know, Brenda, what your emergency powers are, too. Are they all the road engineer? My emergency powers are to tell the county road engineer what to do. All right, that's good. Okay. So should he be on a vacation? Which probably won't happen. But if you were on a vacation out of the country, do you have the ability to do everything that he has to do? And if you're on a vacation, does he have the ability to share back and forth that? So whenever the county road engineer is unavailable, we have an acting county road engineer, so he takes vacation, he's ill, whatever. We have another someone who has an engineering degree, a P license that I do not have who can help us make those technical decisions. But as is true with all of our organizations, we have the ability to act in the absence of one person. Okay, great. Thank you. Okay. Okay. We'll move now on to the regulations that have been. I'm sorry, one more of the new authority again. This is enforcement entitled 14. It's on page 251. And it authorizes the county road engineer to enforce specific sections and subsections of this. Previously, the existing language gave this authority to the King County D.A., director and to the sheriff. And so this would give the authority to the county road engineer, the sheriff subsections relating to road closures, road restrictions, load limiting bridges, standards, road vacations and road variances. Okay. So the sheriff still has the same authority had before to. Yes. Okay. So offline on those two subsections, load limiting bridges. I'm very concerned about that and also road vacations. So those two are ones I'd like to know more about later. Okay. Okay. Moving on to the modified regulations. This is on page 251 of your staff report. Standards for utility for poles have been broadened to apply to every utility pole and other utility structure, not to just every new placement and every planned replacement. Okay. So that's a big deal. And so I think the companies and I think this is the one that there was a recent court ruling on, this is something that allows us to address the issues with clear zone that we did our presentation to you recently. Okay. So everybody that a law degree up here needs to know about that. So if you don't, we can be briefed anyway. Okay. So that's a big deal. All right. Go ahead. Okay, then the next modified regulation is for sidewalk repair and responsibility. This define this is section 14.50 2.020 of the county code and the new. The proposed changes would define the procedures to the floor. Notice to property owners. It again provides provisions for appeal and for the director to assess the cost of the repair or the reconstruction on a sidewalk that's been damaged or not maintained against. And so the costs would be assessed against the abutting property owner there is. And as with the existing language, the lean would be capped at 25% of the assessed value of the abutting property. So one of the things I'd like to know about is how do you repair site? I mean, how do you maintain a sidewalk? I sweep it. I have no idea how else to do. And over time, the cement begins to become what it powdery. So do you want me to get out with my. No. This really has to do with where the essentially property owners have damaged the sidewalk as a result of their tree roots. Or. Other instrumentality on their property that resulted in damage to public infrastructure. Okay. And that's another thing I want to talk about is trees in the sidewalks, because they plant these trees and I know we have a list of trees, but they plant these trees with these huge roots and then they all come up and they try to walk around. And it's very dangerous, especially for seniors or people trying to use canes or crutches. So. Okay, we'll talk about that later, too. All right. Okay. Okay. The next one is planning street maintenance. And this language just specifies that plants are prohibited in the temperate clear zone unless there is a curb present. Okay. The next item on page 251 also is intersection standards. And this language makes clear that there will be no administrative fee charged to review intersection standards and that any traffic study that is required would be paid for by the owner of the proposed development and the county staff would be reviewing those studies as they came in . Okay. So that completes the policy issues with respect. With the exception of the Road Vacation Authority section, we're still working with legal staff and roads in our analysis on that. The one issue I would bring to your attention is that the proposed changes would enable the County Council to proactively initiate a proposed road vacation. Currently, those need to be done via petition. That petition authority would remain, but the Council would also be able to initiate it and would be able to initiate on behalf of the executive. Yes. As you're working on that, I believe state law has been updated recently, but at least under our old system, a fluke could occur in terms of the valuation of our big kid and right away where you'd have your classes, I think three class era, but then you'd look to the assessed value of the parcels on either side . So say you had a 60 foot ride away and you were going to vacate it by 30 feet, going to each of the abutting property owners. If you had low valued land, say on one side, it could be rural or could be underdeveloped or for whatever reason could be low by land. And so you had a subdivision on the other side which is higher valued land. You would bless you, Councilmember Lambert, if you could result in paying a multiple for the very same property on one side of the market and right away of what you would require the money to pay on the other side. And it was it just made no sense. I word you can be paid $100 a square foot for land that was next to $5 a square foot. And I hope that we can in these reforms, if the state law doesn't do it, get to a spot. I see it's adding more flexibility to get to a spot where we have some consistency of coherency in that little fluke of our population that. That part of the code is completely gone in the revised version. And we do have a lot more flexibility in state law and we are taking advantage of that in our proposal to allow the county to essentially right size its right of way to the right of way that. Is actually used by the public and. Valuable to the public and kind of. Remove some of the. Liability that the county carries. Most of this right away we're vacating by virtue of the vacation requirements is not a value to us and is of limited value to the adjacent property owners. Typically we carry tremendous liability for it, but we don't get property tax, we don't get and we're often doing work to keep it from being dangerous to the public. So trees grow in impacted trees, what have you. But we've got a system where it might cost about one issue of diverge of. Article. One. And the second issue is just I think it's in here to the extent we can incentivize an adjoining property to pick it up, even though they may not want truly they wouldn't want to pay a lot of value for it, but they might pay something. It gets on the tax rolls, it takes it off of our books. But if there's a burden, not a burden, but a barrier because of the high price that doesn't match the added value, they just won't do it. And it stays on our books in something more useful. I'm interested in the work there to get values correct. Thank you. Okay. That completes my report on the Title 14 update. As I said next, I believe at your November 7th meeting, I would be coming back with additional analysis of the road vacation section of the road standards updates, and a striking amendment that your legal counsel has prepared with appeal. Okay, great. Thank you. All right. Thank you for all this. And I want to move on to the next one, number nine, which is 2016 411. Thank you, Madam Chair. Item nine on your list, Coastal Counsel Staff. Item nine on your agenda is approval of the quarterly report from the Road Services Division on emergent needs and unanticipated project costs. My staff report begins on page 435 of your packet. This is the sixth of seven quarterly reports required by a budget proviso that the proviso had two objectives. First, to provide closure, policy oversight of road services expenditures in light of a budgeting shift from specific project investments, i.e. individual capital projects to a program based capital project or capital budget that pooled funds for common purposes. And second, to help monitor whether expenditures from this pool of funds track with Council's policy objectives set forth in the strategic plan update. This the pardon me? There are two minor amend or two transfers. The quick response transferred $580,000 for two projects. And the. Pardon me. Let me just get to my page here. The first was $500,000 transferred to the Doctrine Road Southwest Erosion Project, and the second was $80,000 to the Bredell Over Crossing Repair Project on the Kent Black Diamond Road. Emergent need transfer was just a $21 transfer to close out the Southwest Roxbury Project. For a budget record reconciliation. And that completes my staff report manager. So on the quick response, how are we doing on making sure that we are able to go out when there's an emergency and do a quick response? Jay Osborne, Deputy Director. So with the quick response program we've been funding, as you've seen in these quarterly reports that have come before you, things that have arisen or damage to the road system that needs to be fixed. The Doctor and seawall is one that's underway currently, as is the very day over crossing, which is almost complete. You'll see in the next quarterly report there was a lot of landslides on Vachon. So you'll see a number of transfers for additional projects on based on the amount of money that we have in the budget. We at this point aren't expecting to carry over a huge sum into the next biennium. We have about 3 million left unexpended going into this stormy weekend, which turned out to not need huge amounts of money. Thank goodness. In that in that. So. Okay. I'm also looking at our preservation money and it's greatly concerning that there's 9 million in 2013, but only 7 million in 2015. So we've had a $2 million, 17% reduction. And so that's that's an issue. Where do we where does that put us. In the budget? That's before you. You'll see, we just finished how high? Our high accident location safety report. So there are a number of safety projects that are funded in there. There is a slight uptick in the amount of preservation we're able to do because our revenues have increased slightly going into the coming biennium. But there are no bridge projects or any standalone preservation projects. We're concentrating primarily on pavement preservation and drainage work came the budget proposal. So the idea you don't have a stand on preservation and also there's no money going into bridges is of great concern to me. And we asked the Federal Government to go back to separating their roads money from their bridge money. Do you know in the latest, did they do that or is bridge money now still in with the roads money? There is a separate amount of bridge money that comes down through the state. But part of what you're referencing in the Federal Highway Trust, this House of Representatives has not acted on that legislation at this point. Okay. So when we go back early next year, hopefully they'll have acted on it, but not having it. For me, it's a lack of transparency. We know how many bridges we have. We have 181, is that correct? Under 81 bridges, we know what state of repair disrepair they're in. And the federal government should be giving us a proportional share of that each year. And the fact that they're not is really disconcerting. So then on table two, Miller Bridge replacement, 2.5 million. That was taken up in the 2013 a.S.A.P. Where's that now? Is it just non-existent or is it still being tracked that that was taken out so that if we ever had money, we can go back to that. That project that was in there initially was scheduled to be funded by FEMA. Right. But as you know, FEMA had declined to fund the repair work of that bridge in there. We do have some road end proposals and some of the FEMA adjustments in that area that have been offered up. But we still do not have funding to reconnect that bridge. So just for everybody to know what he said is absolutely correct. But the problem that has been exacerbated is that that is a train stop. And there used to be three ways in and out of Skye Comet, and the train usually covers two of them. And that was fine because you always had the third, but because this is out, there is no third. And so we have had four times now where skirmish has been cut off and one time it was cut off for four and a half hours. Nobody could get in, nobody could get up. And that is not acceptable and is very dangerous. So I am working with our federal legislators on dealing with FEMA on this. So I just want you to flag it that it is still very much in my mind and something that I'm not happy about the federal government not stepping up. I think they should have. So. Okay, so that's an issue we need to still keep working with. Okay. Anything else? Madam Chair, would you like to take action on that today? I would, so let's see. Council member would you be willing to put number nine? This is four for eight, is that correct? I mean, this is 4041121201110. That is number nine. Yeah. Okay. I'm sorry. Look at the wrong number for one one. Just looking at the page number. Sorry. That doesn't mean you can remove it. I mean, if we give it. You passed recommendation to motion 2016 for 11. Great question. Okay. Clerk, will you please call for the vote? Thank you, Madam Chair. Council Member. Banducci Council Member Dumbass I Council Member Done. By. Council Member Gossett II. Councilmember Colwell IV Council Member McDermott. But. Council Member of the Grove Council member run right there. Madam Chair. Madam Chair, the vote is ADA is no nos and council member van right there. Excuse. Okay. I think that we really don't need to talk about this probably at the full council unless you want to. I was thinking consent. Okay. Okay. With consent for this. Okay. Does it need to be expedited or not? No. Okay. So regular and concert calendar. And we will continue to work on all the many issues that all of that contains. It's heartbreaking. Okay. So that takes us on to the next ordinance. Thousand 16 0401. This one will be very quick. Madam Chair, this is item ten list Lisa K Council Staff. Item ten on your agenda is proposed ordinance 2a160401. My staff report begins on page 449 of your packet. This ordinance would simply move to consolidate sections of the county code that address the Commute Troop Reduction Act into Title 28, which is metropolitan functions. So the existing county code, Chapter 14.60 on computer production would go into a new chapter in Title 28. Okay. And there are no structural changes or policy changes. I just feel really moving it so that it will be more consistent. Yes, ma'am. And because we haven't done since 1994 and it's about time. All right. So that sounds like an interesting thing. Any questions? It is. Would you like to do that? Do pass recommendation on proposed ordinance 1016 0401. Thank you. Any questions? Okay, quick, could you please call for the vote? Thank you, Madam Chair. Council member. Belushi I council member themselves. Council member done by Council Member Gossett II Councilmember Caldwell I. Councilmember McDermott. Grove. House Member of the Grove Councilmember run right down. Madam Chair. Madam Chair, the vote is either none of the members on right are excused. Thank you. I think we can also put that on consent on regular calendar. So that will be good and we will continue to work on the other off line as we prepare for more things. And hopefully we will not end up with needing a pogo stick to get over our roads. Thank you so much for being with us today. Okay. Our last item is a great item also, and this is a ordinance 2016 0431 is an ordinance establishing a task force on labor trafficking and economic exploitation and requiring a report

Recommendation to request City Attorney to prepare an ordinance designating the Alamitos Neighborhood Library located at 1836 East Third Street as a Long Beach Historical Landmark. (District 2)

LongBeachCC_03012016_16-0198

Great. Thank you. Thank you all again. And Mr. NOW, Madam Kirk, item 13. And I'm 13 or 12. Item 12 Report from Development Services Recommendation to request the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance designating the Alamitos Neighborhood Library, located at 1836 East Third Street as a Long Beach Historical Landmark District to. Is there a staff report? Madam Vice Mayor, members of the City Council. I'm here to talk to you about a potential recommendation to designate the Alamitos Neighborhood Library as a Long Beach historic landmark. As you know, for the past year and a half, we have been putting a renewed effort on our historic preservation initiatives. And one of those initiatives is to look at landmarking opportunities for both city and for private properties. The City Council recently. Revised the historic ordinance to allow us to go through the landmarking process more efficiently. And this would be the first project that we would bring to you under that new, more efficient ordinance. So with your approval, we would set a hearing and come forward with an ordinance to landmark this location, which does happen to be in District two. Thank you. Thank you, Ms.. Burdick. And I wanted to thank the Cultural Heritage Commission for making this recommendation. This library is one of our jewels in Alamitos Beach. And I remember a celebration we had there for the library a few years ago, appreciating what a great piece of living history it is for the community and for the entire city . If it hasn't already been highlighted, the Alameda Speech Neighborhood Library, I believe Ms.. Highlighted is the oldest remaining building in our library system. And that's something that gives me great, great joy to celebrate and be sure that we forward this for a successful action on the recommendation. And with that, I've made the motion. Councilwoman Gonzales, would you like to address it? I just want to congratulate staff and the Cultural Heritage Commission as well. This is wonderful. Thank you. Thank you. There's been a motion and a second. Is there any member of the public that wished to address Council on item 12? Please come forward and state your name. Very good. You click as it is. It's a superb idea and it should be passed. It's a great building, great asset to the to the district and and also to the city. Thanks. Thank you. Mr. Good. You. Members, please cast your vote. Motion carries.

Recommendation to adopt resolution amending Resolution No. C-28465 with respect to the utilization of flight slots allocated at the Long Beach Airport and related administrative amendments to the Resolution, in accordance with the Airport Noise Compatibility Ordinance set forth in Chapter 16.43 of the Long Beach Municipal Code. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_11202018_18-1037

Great. Thank you very much. Next up is item 17. Item 17 is a report from Long Beach Airport. Recommendation to adopt resolution amending resolution number C, dash 28465 with respect to the utilizations of flight slots allocated at the Long Beach airport citywide. Thank you. I'm going to turn this over to Mr. West. Mr. Mayor, council members, this is an item that we've been debating for quite some time regarding how our slots allocations are flown at the Long Beach airport, especially with all of the new additions and improvements that we've made there. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to our executive director of the airport, Jess Romo, who will walk us through the proposed resolution Jess. Thank you, Mr. West, honorable mayor, vice mayor and members of Council. As Mr. was said, this has been a long and thoughtful process. And so tonight here, this culminates with a request for the city council to consider and look at proposed flight allocation resolution amendments. I'm sure you all had an opportunity to take a look at the very lengthy staff report. We want to make sure that all issues were covered. But this slide deck here really synthesizes it and summarizes it so that we could go through and look at the highlights of this project, as well as entertain any questions that you may have. So just to to cue this up, this slide deck here really is going to cover historical and legal context associated with the noise ordinance and flight allocation resolution. It will also speak to the current flight allocation resolution that's in place, as well as a summary of the proposed amendments. We also include data regarding average daily flight utilization on a monthly basis so that you can get a snapshot of what we've seen take place since January 1st of this year, including some projections that will take us into spring of next year. And then finally, we're going to cover the rationale that really is behind the proposed amendments to the resolution. So with that, in as most people who've been within the city for any length of time, you'll realize that this has been a very long process and very storied. Ordinance and allocation resolution there really they both support each other going back to 1981, which is when the first noise ordinance was enacted. And over a period of 14 years, there were steps along the way that included litigation, legal challenges, federal district court decisions, and finally culminating with a final judgment that allowed the city to adopt its current noise ordinance and companion flight plan allocation resolution. We want to make sure that members of the public, as well as the council and mayor are aware that, you know, there are two components to or noise restrictions here within the city. There is the noise ordinance and its implementing resolution. So as it's shows on the slide deck here, both documents balance the community needs for, you know, reasonable air service at the airport, along with environmental interest of the communities that are located within the city, within the vicinity of the airport. And secondly, what we're here for tonight is to look at the flight allocation resolution, and that really is what provides what we call the implementing flight allocation regulations that are consistent with the noise ordinance provisions. And just a little bit of background. You know, Long Beach Airport, along with a very small handful of airports in the nation in a fit of fairly strict noise regulations. And that's that's in part in large part because these regulations were initiated or put in place before the federal legislation, which has referred to the Airport Noise and Capacity Act or in shorthand referred to as anchor, which really now restricts airports from being able to set limits on certain limits at airports, especially those that would otherwise interfere with aircraft operations or those that would affect aircraft safety. So short of that, airports are allowed to do that, but it is a very difficult road to go down and to be successful at. So in that regard, Long Beach has the benefit of a noise ordinance and set of regulations that allow us to to manage that that balance of aircrafts or airline service and aircraft activity against the environmental needs of the community. These amendments, any amendments that we would make either to the noise ordinance or the allocation resolution, they have to be consistent with the City of Long Beach's sponsor, assurances that we have in other covenants that obligations that we have with the FAA. And finally, these amendments, they cannot or any application for federal grant funding, which is very critical for the airport in terms of keeping the airport operational areas safe and operational, or our ability to impose federal passenger facility charges or Pepsis, which is another funding mechanism that most airports rely on. The noise ordinance. As I said earlier, it is so, you know, we're one of the very few airports that enjoys this protection in it is unique as most of the noise restrictions that airports do have that are pre anchor. And because of that it's it's got to be protected. So staff has always been mindful and will continue to be mindful that it's a balance. But protecting the ordinance is one of our paramount duties. So we have or the noise compatibility ordinance, which is under, you know, the Chapter 16.43 and that is not being amended. So I wanted to make sure that was real clear. So people in the community had concerns about not touching the ordinance. So this action tonight does nothing with the noise ordinance itself. We know that the ordinance has been hard fought. It is one of the strictest in the nation. And again, instead, what we are looking at is amendments to the resolution, which is an enabling document that helps us protect and really show how we will enable airlines to maximize the capacity that does exist at the airport. So in particular, the flight allocation procedure procedure resolution, which is in place right now, was adopted back in 2004. It is worth noting that this is not the first or the second or third amendment of the allocation resolution. It's actually been amended six times to date, although the most recent one was in 2004. And again, it really supplements and buttresses the noise ordinance that your get provides that implementing allocation procedures that are in line and consistent with the noise ordinance. The resolution in particular addresses allocation, preference by air carriers, flight slot allocation process, the steps that are needed anytime an aircraft or an airline wants to secure flight slots. The minimum use requirements, which would be a key part of what we'll discuss here tonight, as well as a process to have the airport reserve and reallocate unused portions of flight slots. So a very high level summary of the amendments that are before you tonight is that what we're looking at is to have increased slot utilization of the slots that are awarded to the various air carriers. We'll get into the specifics of where they are today and where we would like to take them. It also revises certain definitions of flight slots and ferry operations is actually to help provide flexibility to the carriers and ferry operations, for example, or any time an aircraft needs to be repositioned. It's not a revenue flight, doesn't have passengers. It could be an equipment issue. But we want to make sure that that is clarified so that it gives more flexibility to the carriers, as well as a number of administrative amendments. And that is in part to help modernize the document itself as things have changed and references, you know, that that didn't exist back in the last time this was amended back in 2004. So this is a side by side. And we actually used this table when we held the community meetings earlier this year. So if you look on the left, this really speaks to the current minimum slot use requirements that are in place now under this resolution. And in short, really what it requires is for each slot that an airline has that they have to fly a minimum of four times per week, over a 180 day period. That equates to about 57% minimum utilization. So as long as they fly it on average over 180 days, you know, four times a week or 57%, they get to keep that slot on. The converse of that is that, you know, 43% could go unused if they choose not to fly that. There is another way that we look at that on a monthly basis or on a by monthly basis where they have to fly 30 flights in a 60 day period, which is 50% of that of that slot that's allocated on the right. We're looking at what we are proposing and what we're looking at is a stepped up requirement that really reflects a balance of working with carriers, understanding that schedules do change. But with that backstop of if you're going to have a slot, you should use it much more efficiently. So if you see they're on a monthly basis, what we're proposing to require is a 60% utilization, which is about 4 to 4 days out of the week. And on a quarterly basis, 70%, which is about five days out of the week. And then on an annual basis, 85%, which is about six days out of the week in order to maintain that slot. And this is the graph that I alluded to in the introduction. And really this is to help give everyone a picture of starting in January of this year. And obviously, we have data through October. And I'll just walk you through it real briefly that those months and those bars represent utilization. And if you look down below, really the blue represents the flights I'm sorry, the flight slots that were flown during that period of time. And you can see that for the first eight months, January through August, every every slot for the most part was flown very you see, very little in and probably no yellow. The as you move further on, we've got two months now that we've been able to see that since since September through and into October there has been a reduction in the use of the of the actual slots that are awarded either permanent or supplemental so that that green space. So the green and the yellow space represent that capacity that is available and the green of that represents what was actually flown. So the yellow across the board represents the UN flown capacity that's available but not being used by any carrier. Now of course, we are projecting and forecasting, you know, going forward, which is all we can do based on schedules that have been loaded. But if unless things change, this is what we're looking at in terms of a flight profile through March of next year. And again, if we don't change the allocation resolution, there would be no incentive for carriers to change behavior. So the main rationale behind proposing amendments are that it ensures that air carriers are adequately utilizing their flight slots. It also reduces the potential for anti-competitive conduct by certain air carriers. It promotes an airport operation on a fair and reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination, which is in accordance with FAA regulations. It also reinforces the proposition that our flight slots, they are not property rights or property interest of the carriers, but they in fact belong to the city to be allocated based on a reasonable use by the air carriers. The adoption of administrative penalty provisions, including the reduction of flight slots where there is underutilization under utilization, that is parcel part of the proposed amendments. Before you tonight. Again. The action tonight does not change the ordinance at all. The noise ordinance is not before you for any type of amendment at this point. It also does not change the structure for administrative violations that occur during the non permitted hours, which means that the fines structure for violations does not change because that's part of the noise ordinance, nor do the the daughters, the fine structure for consent decree violations that occur after 11 p.m. and before 7 a.m. again. Those are all those are part of a separate agreements with the city prosecutor. That's not up for discussion tonight, nor are we considering the number of permitted slots it is. There are 41 permitted slots that are permitted currently. And, you know, obviously right now we've got nine supplemental slots. That's not under consideration tonight. And then lastly, this does not in any way affect the flight profile of Long Beach Airport. Basically, the air carriers, so all the carrier, all the routes are and would remain domestic routes into and out of Long Beach. And as a reminder, we were very careful and thoughtful to make sure that we did a lot of outreach. So our outreach really in three tranches, you know, included outreach to the air carriers and the FAA. You know, you'll see the dates on there. We did it twice in 2017. We've done it three times in 2018. We had two community meetings earlier this year, back in January and February, where we presented this information and accepted comments by attendees as well as any written comments that the public wanted to submit at any time this this calendar year. And then, of course, the stakeholder responses really were based on the what the carriers, for the most part, and really the carrier responses were limited to Southwest and JetBlue. And those are part of your package. So tonight we are recommending that you consider adopting the resolution, the resolution of 28465, that would increase minimum flight slot utilization requirements and other administrative amendments. And with that, we're here to answer any questions you may have. Thank you, Mr. Romo. Very thorough presentation. I know a lot of work went into this. I appreciate that. Before I get to the council and Councilwoman Mongo, any public comment on this? Seeing no public comment or close public comment? Councilwoman Mongo. I think and appreciate our airport staff. I think that you guys did an excellent job at the community meetings, and I think that that is why the community has been so supportive of this. I think that you guys have been great and I think you did all your research. And for that reason, I'm supportive. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Austin. I, too, am supportive. Also want to thank our airport director and staff at the airport. They have gone through a very process oriented, detailed, methodical process to get get us to this point. The community outreach efforts, the updates to the Airport Advisory Commission and frequent briefings with the council, I think has been very, very helpful. I don't have really any questions about this. I think this is a a no brainer. I see this as a clean up effort and right sizing of our slot allocation resolution in an effort to maximize efficient use of flight start slots at Long Beach Airport. And it's also consistent hearing from our airport director that this resolution has been amended six times in the last couple decades. And it makes a lot of sense to us, for us to to look at how this flight allocation process benefits the airport and puts the airport in in the in the driver's seat. And so I am completely supportive of this this item, and I'm glad to see it before us. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Pearce. Yes. I also wanted to thank staff. I think when I first got on council, I didn't know that we would get to this place. And so I'm really proud of staff the direction and the council members who the airport directly impacts. I often think of the airport as an asset for my district because we have tourism in my district. But knowing that that we've come this far, I think not having public comment is one of the few times I will say it shows how far we've come. This is the least amount of people I've seen in this room whenever we've talked about the airport. So for that, I applaud staff for hard work and really taking your time to get it right. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Super now. Thank you. I'd also like to commend staff for those of those of us who work with this on a daily basis. It's pretty simple. But if you don't, it's very, very complicated. And I think you did a great job, especially the PowerPoint here today, to make a complex issue, very simple and understandable. So thank you again. Thank you, Councilmember Ringo. Thank you, Barry. And I won't add my voice to the congratulatory comments that we made to the staff. You came in within two. Years, have made a quick evaluation. And see that we can do a lot better with our. With our flights. And I'm very pleased that it's going to make our airport that much more efficient and helpful for the community. So thank you for the working to. Put into this. Thank you very much. Members, please cast your votes. Motion carries. Great. Thank you and excellent job by the team at the airport as well. So thank you very much, the whole team. Moving on to item number 18.

A RESOLUTION opposing Washington Initiative Measure 1366 and urging Seattle voters to vote “no” on Initiative 1366 on the November 3, 2015 general election ballot.

SeattleCityCouncil_10192015_Res 31623

Agenda item one, resolution 31623. Opposing Washington initiative measure 1366 and urging Seattle voters to vote no on Initiative 1366 on the November 3rd, 2015 General Election Ballot Introduced October 12th, 2015. Thank you. I move to adopt resolution 31623. It's moved in second. And if the resolution be adopted, we will now hear comments from council members in support of this resolution. Are there any comments? This resolution is on the November 3rd general election ballot. It is somewhat complicated, but it is a resolution that would mandate that the state legislature take action on tax matters or impose a two thirds majority vote requirement. This, if adopted, this initiative could cost the taxpayers of Washington State up to $8 billion over the next six years, primarily for funding of education and other essential services. It would block reform of our tax system, which is one of the most regressive in the United States. The initiative is opposed by both Democrats and Republicans in the state of Washington. And by adopting this resolution, we urge the voters of Seattle to oppose Initiative 1366. Are there any other comments from council members? Council members who want. Thank you, Brian Burgess. Just to make it clear, a vote of yes on this resolution is would be advocating for no on the statewide initiative. I strongly support this resolution. The initiative would set unnecessary restrictions on new taxes. These restrictions are particularly problematic because of the existing tax structure in the state, which is the most progressive in the nation, and particularly the fact that the sales tax, which is at the moment the backbone of tax revenues in the state. Taxes, poor and working class people far more than rich people and corporations. In this initiative, there are even exemptions to the sales tax specially built in for corporations. For example, there is an exemption for chemical fertilizer and an exemption for jet fuel. I mean, what regular person is buying massive amounts of jet fuel? Boeing buys jet fuel. I doubt if any of us has ever bought jet fuel. I mean, if you own an aircraft, maybe you do. So this initiative is really designed to stop us from beginning to shift the tax burden off the backs of regular people and onto the super rich and big business. And I fully support a council resolution objecting to that and urging voters to reject the initiative. It also should be added, though, that our state legislature, regardless of which major political party establishment has been in control of it, has totally failed to pass progressive taxation measures even without this outrageous restriction going forward. So we should oppose this restriction because we should oppose further hurdles being put in the way of taxing the wealthy. But we should not let current lawmakers off the hook for their failure to act so far. And the best way to do it is to hold city officials accountable so that we can push for every possible progressive revenue option at the city level to push on the state. And let's all oppose this Dim Omen initiative. Thank you. We'll now hear comments from council members in opposition to the resolution. Are there any comments? We will take comments from the public. Now I wish to speak in opposition or support of the resolution. How much time? We'll take comments for 6 minutes. Speakers will alternate between opponents and proponents of the resolution until the 6 minutes have expired. We'll begin with someone in favor of the resolution. Paula Revere. Hi. Thanks again for a chance to speak. These initiatives are look like random moneymaking schemes. They really aren't. This is a way of really strangling the legislature. And we've already been strangled with that income tax, which I could show someone listen long enough that the people in the state of Washington want an income tax. There are certain millionaires that don't. And there are other states that support that same nonsense. So we have to live on very little money in this state, and it's constantly being squeezed every legislative session. And now we'll be losing our schools eventually. If you look at Chicago and Detroit and have charter schools and basically it's it's a way of starving the life out of representative government. Which takes us back to the Treaty of Verona, November 22nd, 1822. They celebrated on the day that President Kennedy was killed because he fought the most representative government when he impeached the Federal Reserve and issued silver certificates and silver dollars. So Tim, I'm in is definitely an enemy in that respect. The problem is that people don't get the whole story and they may vote for it just because it doesn't look like a big deal. And that's a shame. With my 37 seconds left, I wanted to share with you that the person that runs the TPP, Mr. from is the same person who started the Democratic Leadership Council out of Arkansas and brought in Mr. Clinton, who was not a Democrat and brought him into running for election. And he's the one that signed Douma and he's also the one that did the Crime Act, and he's also the one that killed the Commerce Protection Act, and he's also the one that killed the Steagall Act. So keep your eyes open and don't let your memory forget what's really been happening. Thank you. In order to get more speakers and we're going to shift to one minute of comment in opposition to the resolution. Paul W lock. Paul W Lock. We should do anything we can to restrict giving you more money to spend. Absolutely. We're not getting anything of value. Creating a bureaucracy. That's nothing yourself. Fancy salaries, staffs, you name it. It could go through. It could be a two thirds vote. To raise taxes. We can't afford it. But the majority of the population in this city living off the rest of us. It just running out of people to pay the bills. In California, the richest man moved to Australia. Help them. Billions of dollars in income came into them. People want money. There's been things that make things better. You're still applying. Thank you. In favor of the resolution. Good space guy. Good dog ish, I say. Good space guy. And this initiative from Tim Iman. Tim Iman is one of good space guys heroes. So I have a lot of role models. Tim Iman is one of them. Third State Initiative Measure 1366 has the potential of lowering the sales tax from six and a half percent to five and a half percent. This would be very good if you support the exchange economy, the capitalistic, free market exchange economy that makes the customer the king. So when you tax something, you decrease it. So by having a high sales tax, we decrease the exchange economy. People decide, well, I am not going to be involved in exchange economy. I'm going to do things myself or I'm going to abstain. But if we put low taxes on the exchange economy. New York Times. You actually signed up on the wrong sheet. So is there anyone who wants to speak in favor of the council's resolution? Yes. Are you Sarah? Great. Sheet as well. Good afternoon, council members. Thank you for your resolution. Encouraging a no on initiative 1366. My name is Sarah Kessler with Fuze, Washington, representing the broad bipartisan Coalition of Leaders Opposing Initiative. 1366. 1366 is the latest attempt by Tim Simon and his corporate backers to force state lawmakers into passing a constitutional amendment that would lock into place a two thirds majority to raise revenue or close unnecessary tax loopholes. If both the Washington State House and Senate do not comply with Iman's demanded constitutional amendment 1366 could cut about $8 billion from our state's education, emergency services, parks and everything else. That makes our state a great place to live. This proposal is a lose lose for Washington. Either we cut billions of dollars from education or we permanently lock into place our state's upside down, regressive tax system. And closing our state's constitution is not a toy to play with. 1366 is so flawed it will likely be found unconstitutional. Thank you. Thank you. Our last speaker will be lacrosse. A green. I'm glad I didn't prepare a two minute speech, but I don't have anyone either. I come here to ask your consideration. I don't appreciate somebody telling me how to vote. And when you gang up as a bloc and wanting us to vote one way or the other, you are saying that you have better judgment than the rest of us. You don't tell a grown adult what to do. You may ask are you may suggest. But you can't tell them what to do. I don't appreciate you doing this. And also, I don't appreciate you coming up here and saying at Black Lives Matters when you're here supporting killing unborn children. There's something wrong here. And I would appreciate you considering that. Thank you. We'll now vote on resolution 31623, which opposes state initiative 1366. Those in favor of adopting the resolution vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The resolution is unanimously adopted in the chair will sign it. The report of the Transportation Committee. Please read item number two.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the electric system of The City of Seattle; adopting a system or plan of additions and betterments to and extensions of the existing municipal light and electric power generation, transmission, and distribution system of the City; authorizing the issuance and sale of municipal light and power revenue bonds for the purposes of providing funds to pay part of the cost of carrying out that system or plan, providing for the reserve fund requirement (if any), and paying the costs of issuance of the bonds; providing parameters for the bond sale terms including conditions, covenants, and other sale terms; describing the lien of the bonds and authorizing their issuance as either senior lien parity bonds or junior lien bonds; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_11222021_CB 120196

Agenda Item 20 Council Bill 120196 An ordinance relating to the electric system of the City of Seattle. Adopting a system or plan of additions and betterment to and extensions of the existing municipal light and electric power generation transmission and distribution system of the city. Thank you, Madam Clerk. I move to pass Council Bill 1 to 0 196. Agenda item 20. Is there a second? I can. Thank you so much. It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Are there any comments on a council bill? 1 to 0 196. Agenda Item 20. Any comments on agenda item 20 see no hands raised will occur. Please call the role on the passage of Council Bill 1 to 0 196. Agenda item 22. Want. Yes. Strauss. Yes. Herbold. Thank you. Whereas I. Lewis Yes. Morales Yes. Musgrave, i. Peterson. I. Council President Gonzales. I. Nine in favor and oppose. Thank you so much. Council Bill 120196 Agenda item 20 passes and the chair will sign it. Will it please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? The clerk please read the short title of item 21 into the record. Agenda Item 21 Council Bill 120197. An ordinance relating to the drainage and wastewater system of the city of Seattle recommends the bill passed with council members Macheda Herbold, Gonzalez, Suarez, Lewis Morales and Strauss in favor and Councilmember Peterson abstaining.

Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications No. R-7167 for the El Dorado Park West Artificial Turf Soccer Field Project (Project) and award a contract to Byrom-Davey, Inc. of San Diego, CA, for the construction of the artificial turf field, in the amount of $1,323,115, with a 10 percent contingency in the amount of $132,312, for a total contract amount not to exceed $1,455,427, and authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to enter into the contract, including any necessary amendments; and Adopt resolution authorizing City Manager, or designee, to execute contracts, and any necessary amendments, with FieldTurf USA, of Calhoun, GA, on the same terms and conditions afforded to Region 4 Education Service Center Contract No. R162203, through Omnia Partners, for the purchase and installation of artificial turf for the Project, in the amount of $530,352, with a 10 percent contingency in the amount of $53,035, for a total contract amount not to exceed $583,387; and, for eight years of maintenance of the artificial turf field following the completion of

LongBeachCC_12082020_20-1200

Okay. Now we're back to item 54. Report from Public Works, Park Record Recreation and Marine recommendation to award a contract to Byram Davey for the construction of an artificial turf field for a total contract amount not to exceed 1,455,427. And adopt a resolution to execute contracts with Field Turf USA for the purchase and installation of artificial turf for the project for a total contract amount not to exceed 583,387 District five. Councilwoman Margo. Thank you. I have a couple questions for Steph, please. Can someone please speak to the current field conditions and the water delivery system of the field currently at Eldorado Park? Yes. Brian, Dennis and Eric Lopez can work on that question. Thank you. We're getting set up. Stand by. No problem. I'll make some comments while we wait. Year over year, since I've been elected since 2014, during each season, my office receives dozens and dozens of calls and emails from concerned parents regarding the poor field conditions in Eldorado Park. This project was approved before I was on the City Council with its initial allotment of funding. However, through the years, the project has changed significantly and so I think it's important to speak to a couple of those issues. Brant there. That good. Good evening or good morning. Honorable Mayor and council members. Council woman mango. Yes. So the current conditions of the field right now, we see about 40 to 45 hours per week that's utilized at least during normal times with permitted use, although during COVID times we do see some teams out. This was prior to the current health orders just doing conditioning and skills training. But we also. Experienced about 12 to 16 weeks of seasonal downtime for the field to recover and for annual maintenance and restoration work. I think it's probably widely known that the irrigation system or infrastructure in a lot of our older parks, Eldorado Park included. Isn't quite as reliable. So that. From time to time. Caused us some disruption in field usage. Also, just some of the other natural conditions we do have in certain areas are gopher. Problems that cause some of, you know, tunneling and holes. And I know a lot of. Soccer coaches are often concerned about that additional condition for for the current. Fields at Eldorado. Thank you. One of the things that we explored together and with two previous Parks and Rec directors was the possibility of maintaining a field at a higher quality, similar to, say, Long Beach State and the costs associated. Ideally, we would have been able to go with grass, but it's my understanding that while each state spends more than 50,000 a year to maintain just one field, one natural grass club, club, soccer fields, it looks like the building cost of 144,000 is for eight years of maintenance, and that would be a significant reduction compared to what it could cost if we were to try to maintain natural and a natural grass field at the same level. And do you have any additional comments related to the quality of the maintenance provided? I know we have two other fields in the city and I've received some questions related to and you've been on the calls, I'm just ensuring that we're not putting in a field and then forgetting about it. No, that's a that's a excellent follow up question. I know Director Lopez probably has some other experience, but my understanding of our field that Admiral Kidd and the other synthetic soccer fields of head, they've had some minimal but but actually welcomed ongoing maintenance coverage which I think is important and this is a valuable consideration for the proposal before council this evening. I would like to make an. Additional comment and it is about the watering for a. Quality field. And I think in terms of ongoing costs. It is clear that, you know, the costs of water will continue to go up. And it seems like our experience recently is that the the length of our droughts that sometimes hit Southern. California and in our area, in Long. Beach in particular, would be something else that can be seen as a benefit with a synthetic soccer field, which, you know, during drought times could certainly, definitely be a budget asset for us. Great point. That 50,000 number from Long Beach State did not include their water costs. Another consideration for this field is environmental considerations that came up early on in the discussions. It's important to note that we will not be using crumb rubber for this field. We're using natural substances and that we do have an end of life plan for the project, as you did when you proposed the other turf fields for our city spaces. Do you want to speak to any additional environmental considerations you feel are important as a part of this project? Recyclability. You already mentioned water usage. Even the carbon offsets. I know you designed a bunch of trees surrounding this project so that we could retain and provide a natural barrier. Yeah, I do know that. And this was prior to my arrival, but I knew there was a lot of valuable community input regarding the original proposed project. So I know the. The deletion of perimeter fencing, I think for both esthetic reasons and just to maintain the open accessibility for the community was an important and I also originally there were led. Lighting proposed and I think that was removed again just. To make it, I think a more conducive project of considering the history of it being more or less a passive. Natural environment for the park. Well, thank you for that information. I was glad to see that the field improvement has come in significantly under budget at 1.85 million. Originally, this project was estimated at an inflated cost of 3.1 million when a bunch of considerations were taken in. But I know that market conditions have changed. And at a time when people need jobs, this is a job generator. And we're really proud to be able to have a project labor agreement for this and it is supported by those unions. Additionally, if approved, this would be the final of the three tariffs that were originally approved in 2014. As I mentioned before I was elected, like the other two extremely popular fields at ADM Kid and Seaside Park's Eldorado, Westfield would serve tens of thousands of kids and their families for 15 years of of play. Additionally, this field will not have a fence around it. It will be accessible to the community, including when people attend concerts in the park in that area. It has always been a staple and last year my daughter really enjoyed playing on the fields. But I will say that by the third week of play, huge dust piles and mud puddles and once a rain or sprinklers had been on. So I think the parents will really appreciate the new cleaner environment for their kids to play. And additionally, I have no doubt that the field will host future athletes that would have fond memories of playing at Eldorado Park and go on to great levels. We are very fortunate to have a partner in our nonprofit organization, Partners of Parks. They do provide scholarships for sports. And as many know in trying to achieve equity and helping kids get into programing. Soccer is one of the more affordable sports available for kids in our community. And so scholarships go further when there are more available spaces for soccer, no matter what side of the aisle you're on. Regarding synthetic turf, it's apparent that people care deeply about Eldorado Park, and I'm really proud of that. We all think of it as our park. I know. I think of it as my park. I'm there all the time. We all want to be proud of the things that we value and care about most. And it's important that we maintain safe outdoor spaces for healthy, active play for our children. Given the current conditions of the field, this project's been way overdue and it only just begins to address the needs of our city wide field spaces. I'm I'm very thankful and we've received a lot of communication in my office and through the several years, many know that I'm in the park almost daily and out in the community. And while I have talked to hundreds and hundreds of people about this project and there's been a lot of posting on social media both for and against in the. Councilman, your 5 minutes is up. Wonderful. I have one last statement. As of today, 246 people have contacted my office on this item with interest in support of 129 individuals. Despite the online communications that there's more opposed, there were 117 individuals opposed. And I know that that is just a microcosm of our city. There are hundreds of individuals represented by some of these emails that really do support the project. And so it has taken a long time to get to this point and I hope that everyone will support this item. And we did take a long time to consider alternatives and make adjustments to support the concerns of the community. Thank you. The second mic comes from Boston, roll call vote of mayor. We have one public comment. Oh, okay. Go ahead and control. And Cantrell. And control if you're there. Could you yourself please begin? Okay. We will go ahead and go to a roll call vote. District one, district two. I District three. High District for. NE. District five. I. District six. District seven. By. District eight. District nine. I know she carries three identities. Let's read 50, 78 and 59 and then we'll do it all together. This read each item.

Public Hearing to Establish the Proposition 4 (Appropriations) Limit for Fiscal Year 2020-21 and to Consider Adoption of Resolution Establishing the Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2020-21. (Finance 2410)

AlamedaCC_06162020_2020-8044

Public hearing to establish the Proposition four appropriations limit for fiscal year 2021 and consider adoption of related resolution. Thank you. And this is for this item is this. Jennifer Tab is joining now. Oh, hello. Hello, welcome. Thank you. Good evening, Madam Mayor and members of the council. I'm Jennifer Tyler, a budget manager in the finance department. The California Constitution requires local governments to adopt an appropriate appropriations limit annually by state law. We cannot levy taxes above the allowable limit based on the state's formula for calculating growth for next fiscal year. We would be at 64% of what we are allowed to levy or well below the limit. Please let me know if you have any questions on this item. All right. Thank you. Any clarifying questions of staff council? And Madam Clerk, do we have any public speakers? No one has raised their hand in Zoom and no one has submitted a comment. Okay. Well, with that. Do I have a motion to move? Councilmember only moves the motion. Do I have a second? I swear. Next sex. You two are getting the prize at the end of the meeting, by the way, there'll be a special prize for the most motions in seconds made. So it's been moved and it's been seconded. May we have any. Any further discussion? We have a roll call vote, please. Councilmember de SAG. Yes. Next site. Hi, Odie. Yes, Bella. Yes, Mayor. As he Ashcraft. Yes. That carries by five eyes. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Mr.. Nice to see you. And Ms.. Brownstein. Hello. Even though we didn't see you. Um, okay, so we have completed item six F and counsel before we move on to item six, which I think is going to be a big one to call a break, just a ten minute recess. It is. Let's see, it is 911. Okay. Promise to be back in 10 minutes. Is that enough time? Yeah. Okay. All right. We'll see you all in 10 minutes. Thank you, everybody. Oh, my. I just know it. They tell me. Eric, I think you're on mute. And I'm here. We just lost power on the timer screen, but I'll get it back. She was in the council chambers. Yeah. I think she was. Yeah, I am here. There, but may not be on the air. Can you. Can you hear me? Can I. Go check? You want me to? Okay. I go check real quick. No, I think you can't hear me. There she is. Okay. Sorry. Yeah. Okay. I didn't know. We didn't know. No, sorry. We're. We're here. You sound breathless. Catch your breath. Okay. You tell us when you are ready and we will be ready. We're ready. All right, everyone ready, counsel? Okay. Let's do this thing. A6g is adoption a resolution approving in adopting the City of Alameda Operating Capital Budget Mid-Cycle Update for fiscal year 2022 2021 and adoption of resolution approving workforce changes and amending the Management and Confidential Employee Association salary effective July 1st and a recommendation to accept report on settlements approved between November 1st to May 1st.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the Urban Forestry Commission; adding three new members; and amending Sections 3.72.020 and 3.72.030 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

SeattleCityCouncil_09182017_CB 119066

Motion passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk read the Human Services and Public Health Committee report. The Report of the Human Services and Public Health Committee Agenda Item 16 Council Bill 1190 66 Relating to the Urban Forestry Commission, adding three members and amending Section 3.70 2.0 to 29.0 37. Mr.. The committee recommends the bill passed. Councilmember BAGSHAW. Thank you. This Commission has recommended that we add three new positions to it so that there will be 13 members of the Commission an environmental justice representative, a public health representative with experience in Behavioral Health and a community neighborhood represented representative from underrepresented groups in the environmental field and so on. We recommend that these three positions be added and that this Council give final support to it. Are there any comments? Okay. Will the clerk please call the role on the passage of the bill? Burgess. Johnson. Marez O'Brian. Sergeant Bagshaw. Hi. Gonzalez seven in favor and unopposed. Very good. Thank Bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk read agenda item 17 and 18? Agenda Item 17 and 18 appointments 827 and 829 appointment. Adam Spencer Also Brooke as member Pioneer Square Preservation Board for Term two March 1st, 2018 and appointment of Jiangsu NEF as Kiran as member of Pioneer Square Preservation Board for Term two March 1st, 2020, the committee recommends his appointments be confirmed.

Recommendation to request City Manager to work with Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design certified members of the LBPD and report back with specific recommendations on how individual public spaces such as parks can discourage crime through environmental design.

LongBeachCC_10092018_18-0899

I am 15 five. Item 15 Communication from Councilwoman Price. Councilmember Pearce. Councilmember Super. Councilmember Richardson Recommendation to request City Manager to work with Crime Prevention through Environmental Design. Certified members of the Lab PD and report back with specific recommendations on how individual public spaces can discourage crime through environmental design. But any public coming in this. Councilman Price, thank you. Yes, we have a really great team and the police department that helps residents and businesses try to protect themselves against crime through some environmental changes that they might be able to make at low cost in their properties. Things like trimming down shrubs, adding additional lighting, things that are relatively simple to do and within the control and the power of the business or resident owner. And so I'm hoping that we can extend that concept to our own properties. I realize we have a lot of parks and a lot of beach space, and this is something that would take place over a long period of time. The purpose of this item is to get the process started and to identify a process. Maybe it's a multiyear process, maybe it's a process that is focused on police divisions in terms of the areas that are viewed at in a particular order. Maybe we start with parks, maybe we start with beaches. I really defer to the city manager on how he would like to allocate resources to look at this. But we have the expertize and the specialty in our police department to be able to take a look at some of our public spaces and determine how we can make them safer for residents, whether that includes additional lighting, whether it includes trimming of bushes that are overgrown. Of course, we will never be able to make an open environment free of potential hiding or other hazards. But we can certainly take a look at what we already have and audit the areas too, to make them as safe as possible. And I think about just there's so many nooks and crannies and areas where safety can be compromised and figuring out ways to perhaps close off some of those areas or sign them better, you know, that type of endeavor, I think, would be very worthwhile in in terms of environmental design. So I urge my colleagues to support this item. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Pierce. I feel. Like I'm seconding everything tonight, but I love Sub10. I want to second this item. I guess I did have some questions, but I think we've left it open enough for staff to come back with some options. I know that in the first budget that I participated in, we had the million dollars for Tidelands, that we looked at our beaches and we hopefully have tackled that with different lighting. The other thing I would say is that at Bixby Park, I want to just say how much I appreciate PD. They came down with our community members, our parks director, and did a full walkthrough along with my staff, where we identified what trees needed to be trimmed . The pergolas needed to come down where there was additional lighting that needed to be. So. Maybe one of my suggestions is just that community folks know that this is an option. I understand doing an entire park system is probably pretty challenging and maybe there's an online request or some online process that you can request this and I know we've done this for businesses along Fourth Street as well. So definitely support the direction that this is going. Thank you. Thank you very much. So I've already called for public comment to go. Please call for the vote and I've already done. That very briefly. I know this pushes the envelope. But I would suggest. Building a jail cell. And having to run the numbers, see what it cost to keep somebody there. So when people come down, they recognize what the alternatives are for some of the things they might be considering. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Good. Now we're going to go to public comment. Sorry. Oh. Excuse me. Okay. Okay. Please, members, please get your vote. Count Andrews or Vice-Chair Andrews? Yes.

AN ORDINANCE relating to historic preservation; imposing controls upon the Wagner Floating Home, a landmark designated by the Landmarks Preservation Board under Chapter 25.12 of the Seattle Municipal Code, and adding it to the Table of Historical Landmarks contained in Chapter 25.32 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

SeattleCityCouncil_05032022_CB 120311

Agenda item three Council 1 to 0 311 Relating to historic preservation, imposing controls upon the Wagner floating home, a landmark designated by the Landmarks Preservation Board. The committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you, Madam. Councilor Morales, as chair of the committee, you are recognized. Thank you very much. The Wagner floating home was built in around 1910, was originally located in Lake Washington near Madison Park, but was moved to Lake Union around 1938 and presently sits around the East Queen neighborhood. The controls and incentives agreement for this property applies to the exterior of the floating home and the floating foundation and platform, but not to intend maintenance or repairs of the designated features. Did want to make sure that the owner who actually lives in the home is able to make any repairs that are necessary. But the idea here is to preserve the foundation because it is historic. It is logs that are used rather than a more modern technology to keep the house afloat. And the committee recommends passage. Thank you. Councilman Morales, are there any other comments on the legislation? Seeing none with a clip. Please call the role on the passage film. Councilmember Nelson. I. Councilmember Peterson. Hi. Councilmember Strauss. Yes. Councilmember Herbold. Yes. Councilmember Morales. Yes. Councilmember Mosquera I Council. President Pro Tem Lewis. Yes. Seven in favor and unopposed. Thank you, Madam Clerk. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Okay. Adoption of other resolutions. There are no resolutions for introduction of adoption on today's Council agenda. Last item other business. I did want to take a bit of a digression under other business to give Council colleagues space to make public comments and in recognition of the unprecedented news that has been shaping, what has the potential to dramatically reshape the country in a bad way? That broke yesterday evening. Well, after council briefing. I want to. Start. Oh, hold on just one moment. Madam Clerk did we have? On the agenda, an appointment for Joel Merkel to the public safety. With the council president pro tem Lewis. He was considered under the consent calendar. Oh, yes. Okay. Right. That's what I thought. Thanks. Sorry, I was just. Someone just reached out asking if. That was. Me. My apologies. This does happen occasionally. I'm sorry. I wanted to make sure we addressed that. Joel Merkel, if you're watching, we didn't forget about you. You were in the consent agenda. And we are honored to have you here at the city, to be to be part of the work, along with everyone else who is on the consent agenda. So thank you. See, that's some diligent committee chairing there to make sure all of your stuff got through on the on the final agenda. I'm sure going back to it, though, I did want to take a moment for good of the order to give an opportunity for public comment, given the recent mass of the news of the of the impending decision of the court to over overrule the Roe and Casey stare decisis opinions. And I just want to take a moment at the top just to recognize the historic tragedy of the of that impending decision by the United States Supreme Court. Having read the draft decision that's been circulated, it's a decision eroding decades of social progress. And this country has horrifying implications for impacting the privacy, civil rights and health care of millions of Americans. It's a decision entirely dismissive of the fundamental spirit of constitutional guarantees of privacy and personal autonomy that appear in several parts of our Constitution and indeed has frightening implications beyond this decision for future court actions to further erode personal liberties and rights recognized by the Warren and Burger Courts in particular. It is, in short, an edict that would be expected from a theocratic state and not the judiciary of a free and independent republic. And I did want to just express today, in open session, my strong feelings and in opposition to that decision, my commitment going forward to support state and federal leaders, as Councilmember Strauss indicated earlier, and indeed what we can do as local officials to make sure that rights and guarantees of privacy, of reproductive autonomy, of the right to do to make your own health care decisions without the government intervention is something that we strongly support. I salute the community members, including our own senior deputy mayor, Keisha Harrell, who gathered right as this council meeting was beginning in District seven and Carrie Park to express their strong opposition to this decision. And I understand some council officers are considering potential resolutions for the council to formally comment on this topic. And I look forward over the course of the next week to talk to council colleagues and duly consider those resolutions. So with that, I'm happy to open it up and allow opportunity for other good order comments from council members. Seeing no additional good to the order comments. Colleagues, this does conclude the items of business on today's agenda. Our next regularly scheduled city council meeting is on May 10th at 2 p.m.. I hope you all have a wonderful afternoon and the council is chance.

AN ORDINANCE relating to employment; establishing a hazard pay requirement for additional compensation for grocery employees working in the unincorporated area of King County from the effective date of this ordinance through the duration of the King County executive's proclamation of emergency for the coronavirus disease 2019.

KingCountyCC_03032021_2021-0093

We are going to give him the time today and the pressing need of or the timeliness, if you will, of item eight. Our agenda. We're going to advance to item eight, ordinance 2021, 93, which would require grocery stores in unincorporated King County to provide hazard pay for their workers. Mary Buchanan from Council Central South will provide a staff report. I'm Ms.. Brogan on the line is yours. Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the record on Mary Burke and on from the council staff and the materials for this item begin on page 59 of your packet. In addition, there are two amendments that are proposed for today's meeting that were sent separately in a supplemental packet yesterday. The proposed ordinance would require hazard pay of $4 per hour for grocery workers who work at grocery business locations that meet three conditions which you can see outlined at the bottom of page 59 of the staff report. Those conditions are first, that the grocery business is located in unincorporated King County. Second, in terms of size, that the grocery business is either over 10,000 square feet, primarily engaged in the retail sale of groceries or over 85,000 square feet with 30% or more of floor area dedicated to the retail sale of groceries. And in terms of employee count, that the grocery business has at least one employee working at the location in unincorporated King County and employs 500 or more employees worldwide, regardless of where those employees are employed. And the ordinance is written that this includes but is not limited to chains, integrated enterprises or franchises. This ordinance is written that it would expire at the termination of the proclamation of emergency for the COVID 19 pandemic that King County executive Dow Constantine issued on March 1st, 2020. Moving forward, I will note that given both the executive's and the governor's emergency proclamations of about a year ago, which the council commemorated yesterday on March 23rd , the governor issued a proclamation, the stay home, stay healthy order that closed nonessential workplaces and banned gatherings. Since that time, although the governor has adjusted restrictions on gatherings and workplaces, essential businesses have remained open. And you can find a list of the essential businesses identified in the Governor's Order in attachment three to the Staff Report. Moving down to the bottom of page 60, hazard pay is something that is defined by the United States Department of Labor as additional pay for performing hazardous duty or work involving physical hardship. National reporting has indicated that many employers provided hazard pay at the start of the pandemic, but that most have since phased out hazard pay. In response, a number of local jurisdictions have implemented hazard pay ordinances during the last several months. And you can see a list on page 61 of some of the West Coast jurisdictions that have done so, including Seattle and Berrien, Washington, as well as Long Beach, Los Angeles and Oakland, California. Each of these ordinances, like the proposed King County Ordinance, have limited durations tied to local emergency orders. The next section describes in more detail the ordinance. I'm going to skip over that for now and move it to page 63 to just talk a little bit about what the ordinance would do and who would be affected by the ordinance. So again, as I noted, the ordinance would apply to employees at specific grocery business locations. This compares to the Seattle and Berrien ordinances in that obviously both of those refer to just grocery businesses within their jurisdictions, whereas King County's would be for the unincorporated area where King County is the local government. I'll also note that while the Seattle ordinance has enforcement and regulation to be managed by its Office of Labor Standards for King County, since there is no such entity, enforcement would be managed by providing that employees or entities representing employees could bring civil action in court if they felt that their right to hazard pay has not been met. In terms of the businesses that could be affected by this ordinance. And I'm now on the bottom of page 64 based on a review of grocery businesses using information from the King County demographer and Department of Assessments on the location building square footage of grocery businesses, as well as research on national employee accounts, including of franchises , alliances and brand names of stores, even where individual locations might be individually operated and owned. Staff analysis identified ten grocery businesses that could potentially be affected in attachment. Or you will find a list of those ten grocery businesses as well as their address, the district they're located in, and the square footage of the building in which they are located. You will also see in that attachment about ten pages of grocery businesses that would meet the terms of the ordinance, except for the fact that they are located in incorporated areas. Those are organized by district just so that council members can see if there is anything that you believe is missing from your district. I'll note in terms of the impact on grocery businesses both nationally and across Washington state. According to the Census Bureau, grocery sales have increased during the pandemic by about 11.3%. And based on earnings reports from some of the larger national chains, grocery business profits have increased as well during this time period. That said, staff do not have an easy way to identify potential profits or sales from individual grocery business locations. That is because the Washington State Department of Revenue does not collect gross business income for specific business locations, but rather for the entirety of a business. And in addition, King County receives sales tax information only for items that are subject to the sales tax, which would obviously excluding food, not include most sales at grocery stores. And in addition, aggregates that sales tax information, so it's not easily disaggregated to individual locations. That said, I will note that of the ten locations staff identified, approximately half are part of larger national chains. Half are part of either local chains or are potentially individually owned and operated businesses that are part of a larger alliance, such as the one that you heard from, from the owners of the Skyway Grocery grocery outlet who spoke to the committee earlier this morning. Next. In terms of staff's analysis, we identified health impacts as and looked at the vaccination status of grocery workers. And I'm now on page 65 of the staff report. There has been research done over the last year, including in the British Medical Journal Occupational and Environmental Medicine, that has studied grocery retail workers and found that they are at higher risk of COVID 19, particularly for those who interact with customers on a regular basis. In addition, this research noted that 76% of infected grocery employees had no symptoms, suggesting that those employees could be a source of asymptomatic infection. I will note again that this ordinance requiring hazard pay would expire upon the termination of the governor. This I'm sorry, the executive's emergency order. And I'll also note, and you can see outlined on page 66 that grocery workers would most likely be eligible for vaccination in phase one B tiers two and four, which would begin to cover workers who are either 50 years and older or 50 years and younger who are in occupations considered high risk. Now, it is unclear at this point what the status of grocery workers might be given the governor's announcement of expediting vaccinations for educators yesterday, or the follow up announcement that workers in essential congregate situations such as grocery workers would also be expedited to some level. We're waiting for further guidance from the Department of Health on that. Moving on. On page 67, staff also studied potential community access to food. In other words, if a grocery business that is required to pay hazard pay determines that it must close as a result of that, what would happen to the community? To do this analysis, staff used two metrics used by the United States Department of Agriculture or USDA to study communities with limited food access. And the USDA uses metrics for both low income census tracts that either have a poverty rate equal to or greater than 20%, or a median family income that is 80% or less of the metropolitan areas, median family income, and looks at a metric that they call low access, which are census tracts in which at least 500 people and or 33% of the census tracts populations may have more than one mile from a supermarket or large grocery store in an urban area or more than ten miles in rural areas . Based on these metrics and using the USDA Food Access Research, Atlas staff identified that of the ten potential grocery business locations identified as being potentially affected by the proposed ordinance. Four of them are located in census tracts that meet the USDA's definition of low income, and you can see those in attachment six of the packet. In terms of the level of access to food, using the low access metric, staff identified that in 2010 there were four of the ten census tracts that would meet that definition, and in 2015, three of them would. Now, because it's sort of impossible to say, well, a store now exists and may affect whether a census tract is determined to be low access or not. What staff also did, and you can see this in attachment five, is mapped each of the potentially affected grocery stores and the surrounding area and listed the distance to comparable grocery stores so that you can see is it a half mile to miles, six miles to the closest grocery store? So that information is all available. I will note that there has been litigation brought to both the Seattle and BURIAN ordinances, and we do have legal counsel on the line who would be prepared to discuss litigation issues in executive session if desired. And I will again just close by noting again that this ordinance would be terminated upon the termination of the Executive's March 1st, 2020 Proclamation of Emergency. I'll note again that there are two amendments happy to pause now and take questions or move into the amendments, if you'd prefer, Mr. Chair. Question. Union Council member LAMBERT Thank you. I have a question I got during testimony the other day that the person testifying from the shore industry said that they had divided outreach help from grocery and that. But 6% of the employees in grocery were susceptible and 20% in the government sector. Can you help me remember the background on that? Because in here it looks like they're more susceptible in the grocery sector than retail or government. And I don't remember that being what we heard in testimony the other day. So can you help me remember that? Thank you, Councilmember. I can't speak to the testimony that you heard the other day. I can simply cite the sources that staff used, which again was a British medical study that looked at particularly a group of grocery retail workers at a store in Massachusetts last year and identified the findings. You can see on page 65 of the staff report as well as information from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention about the impacts to people of color who are predominantly represented in frontline or essential industries. So I think one of the things the lady said the other day was. But some of those studies had been done in a conglomerate of all retail. And then it was just recently that they had because they were feeling that that data wasn't accurate to their sector to have them do that. The last thing I want to say, it's a little concerning to me on page 67, we can't do anything about it, but it's kind of what I deal with on a regular basis. So we all deal with on a regular basis. Is the USDA characterized as low access tax of those in which at least 500 people in or 33% of the population reside more than one mile from a supermarket, a large grocery in the urban area, it's not in a rural area. It's ten miles, ten miles to get to the grocery store. When you're 90 years old and somebody's taken away your driver's license, that's really quite upsetting. So I wanted to point that definition out because I think that's that's really very sad. So if this were to pass and one of the stores was to close as a result of this ordinance, what would happen to the people, you know, living in or served by hopefully, you know, with the new announcements from the president and the governor in the last 48 hours, this is going to be a short term thing . But what if in the short term timeframe we lose one of these stores and then there isn't a store coming out on the other end? One of the stores in question is across the street from a senior center, a senior living area. And I am very concerned that those seniors would not be able to get to the store. You might remember a number of years ago I tried to see if we could have golf. Carts. To move the people from their house to the grocery stores. And so, you know, we weren't able to do that for a number of reasons because there's a major road going there. But I still think that we need to look at that. But I'm very concerned that the ramifications to the senior community could be devastating. So I just want to put that on the record. Thank you. Councilmember Lambert, in responding to your point about the distance to define food deserts, they point out that I'm representing rural areas myself. If we had a grocery store within every mile of each other with no longer be rural, we'd be dramatically changing the character. People choose to live in rural communities and accept that part of living in rural communities, being rural and having more distance to go for such services. Further questions of mayors on Councilmember Bell Duty. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We had been working in my office on the definition of employees that are covered. I had some question in my mind reading the proposal about whether there might be unintended consequences in terms of including employees that are obviously not intended to be covered. One of the discussions in a different jurisdiction was about whether it covered people working in a home office. You know, in the headquarters office, truck drivers, etc. and it out. That work really didn't lead to an amendment, but I thought there was going to be an amendment, and I see that there is not one. So, Mary, could you just speak a little bit about the definition that's in the proposal as it sits today? Sure. Thank you, Councilmember. So the definition of grocery employee can be found in the ordinance on page 74 of your packet, starting at line 134. And it reads Grocery employee means a person employed by a grocery employer and works at a grocery business. And this gets a little circular, but grocery business is defined further up in the amendment at line 119 as a retail store operation located in unincorporated King County and then has the square footage requirements. So this clearly would not cover someone working at a home office. I think the question of whether it might cover, say, you know, a truck driver who serves that store would be questionable. You know, I guess it would cover them for the point of time that they were working at that grocery location. But this is pretty clearly defined to those specific grocery businesses in unincorporated King County. Certainly, if the council wished to amend this to add more specific, clarifying language about which employees would be affected, that could be done. That's helpful to know. I don't have more questions at this time. Thank you. See. No more questions. Very few brief amendments. Sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So in the separate packet that you were sent yesterday with the amendments, there are two. Amendment one, which is sponsored by Councilmember Balducci, would state that the council intends to review the need for the ordinance three months after it takes effect and may choose to repeal all or part of the ordinance. And then it adds clarifying language that states that if the Council does not act to repeal the ordinance, it would expire upon the termination of the executive's emergency proclamation. So then moving on. Amendment two, which is sponsored by Councilmember, I would exempt from the requirements of this ordinance a grocery business location that meets four criteria. First, that it is located in what is defined as a limited food access community, defined as a low income, historically underserved community that has one or no grocery businesses within its census tract that it is independently owned and operated with that owner having four or less locations operating simultaneously, that it is over two miles from the closest grocery business location that would satisfy the terms of the ordinance in terms of size and employment threshold, and that that location has less than 25 employees regularly working there. So those are the two amendments, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Senior questions on the amendments and having nothing before us now. I would call on the prime sponsor, Councilmember Dombrowski. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate my colleagues patience as we work through a good, long meeting today with a lot of issues. And I appreciate members attention to this legislation and the excellent staff report, which is, I think allowed us to digest the issues and reflect on where we might be on it and if it would be in order. Mr. Chair, I would move adoption with a do pass recommendation of proposed ordinance 2020 1-0093. The motion is before us. Thank you. I'll just speak if I could briefly get to it. Yesterday, the council adopted a proclamation sponsored in part by Councilmember Dunn, but signed by all members and the county executive. Reflecting on the past year in which we've been living with and responding to this pandemic, which has killed 500,000 Americans and tested our systems of government and society. And in that proclamation, we honored and recognized frontline workers, essential workers, including grocery store workers. And I think that that recognition was appropriate. This industry has been essential. And by that I mean our food industry and ensuring that we are able to deliver this essential function of feeding our community and the council's priorities in response to the pandemic. Housing, security and food security have been the top two areas of focus among those that we've identified. We really engaged in it. We cannot deliver this essential food without both the industry, but also workers who fill the stores and who frankly have shown up every day for the last year putting their health and safety at risk. You can't do it all for yourself. You can't do it on the farm. And without them, we couldn't be providing the food security to them, to the community that we need. So why should we pay them more for doing this? And why should government mandated? I think those are two real questions that are called to be addressed by this legislation. First, with respect to why government should do it, I think that we in our country have now, for over a century, a long history of bringing forth action by government to protect and support workers. There is an imbalance of power between the worker and the employer, and the equalizer in that equation can be and has been in our system, the government looking out for the broader good. We regulate workplace safety conditions. We regulate wages and hours with minimum wages and overtime. This is an area that the government engages in and has in our country for a more than a century. And in. Particular, I. Would say that the concept of hazard pay is well recognized and even our federal government. You go to the Department of Commerce and they have adopted regulations in the court of federal regulations to give somebody to give workers, quote, hazard pay when they are undertaking duties that were not originally contemplated when they started the job because of increased exposure to health risks, among other other things. And the code of federal regulations authorizes increased pay for hazardous duty, and that has occurred here in similar effect. We've got workers in the grocery stores carrying out this function who are putting their lives and those of their families that they go home to on the line. And I think in this case, that it is appropriate to recognize that on a limited, short term basis, this legislation would expire concurrently with the ending of the emergency proclamation, or assuming that that comes from Refugees Amendment. If the Council looks at it in 90 days and said we want to make a change or or alter it , that kind of component, but it's limited in nature. It responds to this particular need, and I think it's the right thing to do. A number of other jurisdictions, of course, have done it for Seattle and Palm Beach, California, L.A. County and others. And so we're not we wouldn't be, I would say, going out on a limb here. So for those reasons, Mr. Chair, I hope that the council will take this up with our values here that we have and keep telling and supporting frontline workers and have really supported us. Thank you. Thank you. Colleagues. Amendments. Councilmember Bell Dewji. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Amendment One. Amendment, what is before us? Councilmember Bell DEWJI. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's been very succinctly and correctly briefed. This has been looking at this overall, and I'll speak to the ordinance as a whole on final passage. But I took a good hard look at implementation questions and, you know, making sure that it's clear and and can be implemented because the last thing we would want would be for there to be confusion and have people be disappointed and or not know what we're expecting them to do. So this the purpose of this amendment would be to just give us a moment in time, a fixed moment in time when we could take action if we choose to not take action. The ordinance continues by its term until the terminates by its terms, but especially given the announcements over the last few weeks and how quickly things are changing, we now have at least a credible promise that possibly every adult in America will be vaccinated within 90 days. And and we see that the cases have been coming down and the hospitalizations have been going down. Of course, all of this could change, right? Like everything changes very quickly in this pandemic. So I would not want to rely on that and say changes the expiration date. But I think we should take a good look and a reasonable but short period of time. And where are we at now as is necessary to continue? And that's the idea behind the amendment. Thank you for considering it, colleagues. The discussion on Amendment One. I like it. It's well thought out. Thank you for all those and see no further discussing all this in favor of please say I. Am. Opposed. Nay, the ayes have it. Amendment one is adopted. Council members are alive. I move amendment to Mr. Chair. Amendment two is before us council members. Hello. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Councilmember Dombrowski, for bringing this forward. Thank you to the unions who have been supporting this. I'm very much in support of hazard pay and will be voting yes on this this ordinance. I've proposed a very limited exemption that would exempt grocery stores located in very limited food access communities that are low income, historically underserved communities, and where the grocery stores are independently owned . They're not part of this, these big national chains that have been making record profits because of the pandemic. I think that the fact that, as Mary mentioned, it's more difficult to understand the financials of each specific store and the fact that if anything were to happen to a grocery outlet, for example, we would further create a food desert. If you looked at the map that Mary provided, there aren't any other grocery stores in Skyway. So when we're dealing with a community that 70% people of color that has the highest proportion of African-Americans in the state of Washington, that many people don't have a car to get around and drive to the next closest grocery store , which is not in Skyway. I just want to be very careful about this very limited situation. Otherwise, I'm very much in favor of this ordinance and believe that we need to pay our workers who are been enduring all kinds of risk, putting their bodies on the line to feed our communities. Thank you. Further discussion. Mr. Dombrowski, I want to thank councilmembers, our ally for working collaboratively on this. And it was an issue that we identified when looking at the legislation. And of course, the history of that grocery outlet is that it took a lot of work to get it there. The one in Skyway, it was empty. The community was without a grocery store for a long time because the big folks, frankly, wouldn't come in because the margins weren't there, the profitability wasn't there. And so I think this amendment under the precautionary principle is well taken. And and we'll be supporting it because we don't want to do harm. And so I think it's very narrowly tailored and well done. Mr. Chair. The Chair. Councilmember Lambert, I. Have a technical question and then I have a comment. Could you tell me online 45 with the is? I've never seen one like that. Usually when you have hammered out with the rest of the line is there. So what is that on line 45? Thank you, Councilmember. What this represents, it's just the way that amendments are written because there are new sections being inserted. This is just instruction to the code revise or that when they add those new definitions in. We have to remember that there are two things going in in between two other things. And so we have to keep adding new letters and so that it's just instruction to the code. Revise here. Okay. I usually see the rest of the statement, but so that yeah. That, that is not there because it's not changing. So this is just telling the code revise or, you know, put this in here and then what had been l is now going to become M okay. So I agree with the statement of the previous speakers, the idea that we don't want to be creating food deserts and I too have a similar situation in my district where the access issue for transportation is very serious and it pertains to seniors. And also we have a lot of people of color in the area that are low income also. So and we don't have good transportation for the bus in that area. So there are a lot of issues where I want to make sure we aren't creating a food desert. So I was hoping that this amendment would say that all low access areas in the county would be treated equally. So I will be voting and supporting this, but I will hope to have an amendment for council that will say that all low accesses can be treated equally. So. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Ms.. Bergeron. Cannot I ask? What what locations are identified in the staff report? We might think this amendment identifies. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes. So the the belief is and I'm just going to scroll to the appropriate attachment here. The belief is, after much quality time spent on the USDA's Food Access Research Atlas, that this amendment could potentially apply to two of the locations identified in Attachment four. One would be the grocery outlet and skyway that meets all of the, you know, owner operated size, income and distance criteria. The other potential, although I do not know for sure, is the Red Apple Dominick's, which is located in District eight that appears to meet the low income, independently owned and operated and the distance criteria. I am not certain about the employee account and I actually have to confess I am not certain how many outlets that owner of that particular Red Apple owns. So that one is potentially affected by this amendment? Not 100% clear. So I hope that's helpful. Thank you. Yes. Further discussion of amendment to. Mr. WELLS. Mr.. QUESTION Thank you, Mr. Chair, of Council Members online and anybody else. But one concern I have here is that you have individuals who are working in grocery stores, are front line employees, putting their health and safety at risk. And at one store they would be able to get this hazard pay and then another store they will not be able to. And I'm just wondering if you have a response to that, to provide some comfort to me about it. I appreciate that. Yeah. Thank you. Councilmember Caldwell's. So. This grocery outlet is not owned by the national grocery outlet. It's independently owned. The national grocery outlet is just their wholesale seller. So financially they are basically independent from the national one. And so I would look at it in terms of which ones are owned by this specific grocery outlet rather than the national grocery outlet. And these owners own just the Skyway one and a rent and one. And of course the rent and one wouldn't be impacted by our King County legislation, since it's a different city. And I. Mr. Chairman, go on, please. Please. And I understand that. And I think that's a valid point. But my concern overall, again, is the individual workers at the stores who have their own one store, they get that hazard pay. The other store they do not. And I think that's the question we can't answer here. You mean that other grocery outlets owned by the national chain. Well, or even our stores in their area might not be skyway, but it might be in other areas where there is the store that would be required to provide that hazard pay, and there might be a nearby store that would not have to provide that transit plan. Gotcha. Yeah, I would. My position would be that each of these stores has a different circumstances and as highlighted by the very limited requirements of this amendment. And I can speak more broadly to the legislation in that regard. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I might, as a member. TOMASKY Thank you, Councilmember Cornwell's appreciate the inquiry. I guess I'm I think it's a good question slash point. The way I think of it is assuming that that that you believe there is value in the hazard pay concept for frontline workers. It's we don't operate in a vacuum. Right. That there are these other competing public interest issues, public policy issues that we need to account for when adopting that policy for workers. And one is in an area where there may be low margin that could perhaps tip the financial picture of the operator to the red instead of the black. The consequences of that are pretty significant in the communities identified by Council Members Alkalis amendment and that is you've reverted to Democrats creating a food desert in the Skyway West to one that isn't. We don't know the finances, but the risk of the food desert is real because that's what it was until grocery outlet came and council members. All my predecessor and his office worked very hard around zoning issues and development issues of the county to get that store in there to be viable. So I think of it as a as a a recognition that we're not operating in a vacuum, there aren't consequences, and that we want to mitigate against the risk of losing that fundamental service to the community of delivering food through this network. I don't know if that's helpful. Thank you, Councilmember de Basket. For the discussion on amendment to. See none of those in favor of amendment to please signify by saying hi. Those opposed? Nay, the ayes have it. Amendment two is adopted. Further discussion. On the on the legislation as amended. I will. I'm on my behalf. But I will say that I'm at this time of unprecedented profits for some national grocery chains to then discontinue making hazard pay for their employees, who we have seen documentation in the staff report and in pursuing since this legislation was introduced and over the last year of the pandemic, are at higher risk of contracting COVID 19. We need to step up in and encourage this type of support for frontline workers. We know that grocery workers are more at risk. And to use this type of legislation as a wedge in arguing that that's why they are closing stores in some hard hit neighborhoods. I think it is abhorrent on behalf of large corporations experiencing great profits during the pandemic. So very disappointed in how some of those actors have behaved. I think encouraging and supporting frontline workers in this legislation has great value. I would ask, and I think it would be the sponsor if you'd be willing to respond to a question about intent in that it be. Large, important, large stores and associations included, not individual ownership. Ms.. Brigadoon referenced in her staff report branding. And I think that might also apply depending on how ownership is structured. With some ideas and thrift ways in particular. Is it the intent to. Only apply to large own stores and not ones that might brand with other stores. Yes, Mr. Chair, it's my understanding and I'm happy to be corrected by Mary or legal counsel, but that the structure of the legislation applies to those larger entities and that a mere affiliation through a brand. This, for example, the main grocery outlet brand, if it's independently owned, it would it would still have to meet the criteria of the multiple stores and employees and square footage before the ordinance applied. Thank you. This is Mary. I'll just jump in to note that in the legislation itself, on page 76, in your packet, starting at line 172, there is a section that describes how business entities that would otherwise be treated separately are, for the purposes of this ordinance, considered as either an integrated, an enterprise or, you know, categorized as part of their larger body. And factors that are considered in the ordinance the way it's drafted, which again, could be amended if this does not meet the intent of the council members, our degree of interrelation between the operations of multiple entities, the degree to which the entity share common management, centralized control of labor relations, degree of common ownership or financial control over the entities, and use of a common brand, trade, business or operating name. So, you know, it's I think it's that final point that might get to some of the thrift ways. As you know, some of the stores that are independently owned and operated but operate as part of a larger alliance or as grocery outlet does as a consignment to that larger entity. So again, this certainly could be amended. This was patterned after the legislation that was developed in Seattle and the way that they made their definition. But but those those are sort of the clarifying points that the ordinance makes about how do you determine if a grocery business is part of this ordinance or not part of it? Thank you, Councilmember Lambert. Thank you. I might add a legal question. There's some that's turning around. We have legal counsel. So my legal question is this. If when this passes, it is prospectively not retrospective. Is that correct? Councilmember. I know we have Steven Tapley from the prosecuting attorney's office here. I will just note that this is prospective only. Okay, great. And I thought one of our in-house attorney, not not in Pasadena, but one of our members who. I'm covering more we're covering the intel is not. Giving legal advice. No, no. The intel the makers that are being prospective only effective upon effectiveness of the ordinance. But I just want to make sure that, you know, I it does concern me that we're telling a business what they will pay because it could become a slippery slope. But hopefully with the new information that we have out and the parameters were put in because of amendment number one, that in 90 days is will be gone and that this is the would that be able to make business decisions? Thank you, Mr. Chairman, to check that legality. Thank you, Councilmember Balducci. Mr. Chair, just a few comments on final passage. One of the things that we have all learned through this incredible last year that we've all lived through is, I think, and a renewed and deeper appreciation for the people and the things that make our everyday life possible. And I'm very grateful that I that I now carry around with me, as I think many people do, this idea that grocery workers are essential workers. But that was not something we used to say before a year ago. And and we learned it really clearly, because at first we were all so afraid. We didn't know if we were going to be able to buy food. We didn't know how things were going to stay open. And throughout all that time, all the uncertainty, not knowing how bad things were going to get and then how bad things actually did get over the last year at times. Every single time that any of us had to go and buy food for our families, there were grocery workers on the other end of those trips to help us get the groceries and feed our families so that we were able to say stay safe and healthy. And we've talked a lot in government and news and public and private about about that gratitude that that new gratitude that we feel towards essential workers like grocery workers. But truthfully, it doesn't mean a whole lot unless you honor people's work with appropriate compensation. That is when I mean, literally putting our money where our mouth is. And so that's why I appreciate this proposal that's been brought forward. That's why I support it. I, I want to answer just a couple of questions. I think a lot of questions have been answered, but that I have heard that have not been answered yet. So one of the questions I've heard about this is what if I'm a grocery operator who runs my business very safely? I've done everything I need to do with regard to each fact and improvements and and personal protective gear and making sure customers are wearing masks, etc., etc.. You know, why should I have to pay hazard pay when my workplace isn't hazardous? Because I've done everything I should. I think this is just a definitional question. Hazard pay doesn't mean that the employer isn't doing everything they ought to do. In fact, I hope they all are, and I think that many of them are. Hazard pay means that just by virtue of going out of your house and going to work every day and being around other people, regardless of what kind of protocols you put in place, there's a risk that somebody is taking on who's out in public working all the time, that those of us who get to work from home are not taking on. I've been asked why these employees and not other types of employees? Why not county employees? Why aren't we giving more hazard pay? Why aren't we do give Caterpillar some of our employees, especially the ones that are on the front line of actually responding to COVID patients. And to me, the answer to that is that grocery workers, among all of the workers who are out there doing what they need to do every day are some of the lowest paid just by virtue of the occupation and the industry. And so to provide a modest and temporary increase to their pay in recognition of the risk that the grocery workers have taken on for all of us, seems reasonable and fair. I do believe that it can be done without putting businesses out of business. If I thought a whole bunch of businesses weren't going to be able to afford this, I wouldn't support it, but I do support it. So I'm happy to vote yes. And I do want to warn that there may be one more amendment at full council, and that's because there's some contingencies around what the implementation date is. Kind of getting back to Councilmember Lambert's question, just by virtue of how we pass ordinances and how they take effect, it could happen on a certain date or it could happen on a contingent date, depending on whether the executive signs or doesn't sign or whatever happens. Right. So I may bring an amendment that says it will take effect on this day. So we will set a day that is, you know, at an appropriately short period of time, just like an ordinance would normally take effect on one of our two paths. But that way, everyone who's charged with implementing it will have a very clear sense on this day it starts. But I, I also want to thank Councilmember Dombrowski and the advocates for bringing this up, because I think it's important it's an important statement and important support that we should provide to important people in our community. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You're welcome for the debate. Scene nine Councilmember Best Q2 clothes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the great debate today on the merits and opportunity to reflect with my colleagues about where we are and on this particular legislation. It is broad legislation for the County Council. This is a big deal and I think for me anyway, sometimes I think if we don't reflect and pause and think and look at things from different angles, maybe we shouldn't be in this business. But I think we all do that. And I, after introducing it, was, you know, looking at the debate and really reflecting, is this the right thing? And and one of my advisers, as you all know, I think, is my dad. And he happens to be the oldest former grocery store worker I know. As a teenager, he worked for Mr. Kreider, Kroger's store in Dallas, Oregon, delivering groceries and stocking the shelves. In fact, his dad, my granddad, said, I don't care if Mr. Crowder tells you to stock the shelves with the cans upside down and backwards, do it just as happily as if he told you to put them on the shelf, right side, up and forwards. In other words, he was the boss. But that was tough work and essential work. And I said, So, Dad, is this the right thing to do, paying four bucks an hour more? And he didn't hesitate. He said, of course it is wearing their bust in their tails and working. Hard. And dealing with the public. And and that was reassuring to me and gave me the comfort to know at least that that little check that I feel we are doing the right thing here today in courage member support. Thank you for the opportunity to bring this forward today, Mr. Chair, on a very packed agenda that can help. Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councilmember Belushi. Councilmember Dan Belsky. Councilmember Dunn. No. Council member Coles I Council member Lambert now council member of the group I like. Council member by night. The high. High Council members. I might. Mr. Chair. Hi. Mr. Chairman. About a seven I's council members, Dunn and Lambert vote no. Thank you. By your vote, we've given it to pass recommendation to 2020 193 as amended, and we will expedite that to full council this coming Tuesday. I'm pleased we are going on the 4 hours of Oak Hill meeting and I want to apologize and express appreciation to Councilmember Up the Grove, whose district executive committee his staff has been delayed from his old low tape 1:00 search. We also have on today's agenda legislation addressing fireworks in unincorporated King County. You've heard it our last meeting from residents of unincorporated King County who are dramatically affected by this legislation.

Recommendation to request City Manager to receive and file a report from the Long Beach Health and Human Services Department on the Father-Friendly Initiative; Formally endorse the nine Father-Friendly Principles outlined in the Father-Friendly Initiative; and Create a plan to retrofit all existing public-facing city government buildings to be equipped with at least one safe, sanitary, and convenient, baby changing station, available to both men and women.

LongBeachCC_06192018_18-0520

So just so everyone's aware of this item as some of the same folks are here for this item. So if you can, please item 25. Communication from Vice Mayor Richardson, Councilmember Supernormal Councilman Andrews, Councilmember Arango recommendation to receive and file a report from the Health and Human Services Department on the Father Friendly Initiative. Thank you, Madam Clerk. So this past Sunday was Father's Day, and I hope everyone had a good time celebrating Father's Day with the important folks in your life. So I do want to recognize that we know that fatherhood is important and the city of Long Beach has some incredible programs related to fatherhood. We know that when fathers are present involved in their child's life, children have improved health outcomes, higher measured measures of cognitive functioning, and are twice as likely to enter college and find find stable employment after high school and are 75% less likely to have a teen birth. We have a number of we have a number of our advisory group members. Just just stand up. If you're one of the father friendly advisory group members, we can just recognize you say thank you to the fathers involved involved in this program. You know, there's a particular set of challenges that many fathers face. Single fathers, gay fathers, stay at home fathers. I mean, you name it. Right. And we want to make sure that we are fam father friendly city. So that said, I want to hand it off. So there are a number of recommendations here, but I'll hand it off to city staff for a quick presentation on the Father Friendly Initiative in Long Beach. Mayor Councilmembers Kelly Collopy, our. Director of Health and Human Services. Good evening. The Life Coach 2015. The Federal Office of Family Assistance awarded funding to the Health Department to provide the Life Coaching and Fundamentals of Fatherhood program with a core purpose. To increase father engagement. To promote safe, secure, and economic stability in the lives of their children. To complement this in 2016, first five LA funded US for the Father Engagement Initiative. This is to inform and impact system changes within Los Angeles County by advocating for policies that are inclusive for fathers, affirming a father's identity, their familiar role, value and contribution to their children, family and community. And I'm going to turn this over to Rosie Velasquez Gutierrez. She's the director of the Center for Families and Youth and has been overseeing this program. Good evening, Honorable Mayor Garcia, Vice Mayor Richardson, members of city council and our honored guest. I am Rosie Velasquez Gutierrez, director of Center for Families and Youth, located at Hampton Park, the north side of the Department of Health. And Human Services. I am honored to have been invited this evening to share with you an overview of the Long Beach weather friendly initiative and some of the exciting things we've achieved so far, and also share the many ways that our city and community partners can join us in making Long Beach a truly father friendly city for all fathers. And their families. As Kelly already mentioned, in 2015, when the Department of Health was awarded federal funding through the Office of Family Assistance, we launched our Life Coaching and Fundamentals of Fatherhood Program. This program is data driven best practice model that has served over 280 fathers across our city. The Father Friendly Long Beach Initiative began in 2016 when first five Ella generously granted us additional funding to launch an effort to create father friendly places and spaces in our city. Thanks to that funding in August 2017, the city's first ever father friendly advisory committee. Was established. With a goal to create a citywide father friendly campaign to promote and engage agencies, organizations and businesses. In conversations about the importance of specifically supporting fathers and acknowledging the important role. That fathers play in the lives in their. Children. The campaign Father Friendly Long Beach was launched in 20th February 2018. The Advisor, The Father Friendly Advisory Committee, includes a diverse group of community, stakeholders and members. Many of the committee members either serve fathers in our community or are fathers themselves. This collective body provided our campaign with invaluable direction and knowledge. We were particularly grateful to have the voice of a number of fathers in our programs as members. Of the advisory. Committee. These voices were critical to ensure ensuring that the policies and changes the committees the committee proposed were inclusive and supportive of all fathers in our city. The goals of the Advisory Committee were to guide the creation and launch a citywide father friendly initiative that aimed to encourage the creation of the Father friendly places and spaces for all fathers and families. We embrace and value the unique role of fathers in their child's life and acknowledge fathers as leaders, role models, nurturers, educators, employees, entrepreneurs and consumers. Thanks to the hard work of our entire committee, our father friendly Long Beach social media campaign launched in February 2018. And I'm excited. To share with you our father friendly Long Beach campaign. Video. I just. You don't have to do it. There you go. It's I me. Is this a video again? It's not working. It's a video. Okay, let's keep going. Okay. Very well. Well, the video shares are father father friendly guidelines, which are portraying positive and diverse father friendly images. We train staff on father friendly practices and changing stations and men's and family gender neutral restrooms. This campaign aimed at identifying those in the importance of those things. That can be very simple ways for agencies and organizations and businesses to become father friendly. The organizations and businesses that show that they have implemented R three guidelines will receive a father friendly decal. By displaying the decals in your business or organization, you declare your support for making Long Beach a father friendly city. The father friendly social media campaign was a huge success. The campaign reached over 209,000 Long Beach residents via Facebook, Instagram and our website in just a few months of the campaign. Businesses throughout the city have already begun reaching out to learn more about how to become recognized as father friendly. Our campaign also includes a brand new website and all the details about our father friendly initiative. Everyone can visit this site to learn more about obtaining a father friendly initiative daycare and becoming more active in this initiative. Our work is dedicated to changing the perception of fathers in Long Beach by creating a city that is inclusive of all fathers and acknowledging and valuing the role of fathers in the lives of their children. With that in mind, the Father Friendly Advisory Committee established a set of father principles for all Long Beach residents. We value our fathers here in Long Beach. We know that the policies that make spaces and places better for fathers make places and spaces better for the entire family. If you'd like to get involved in our initiative, visit our website and learn more about this movement. If you work with an entity that is interested in becoming father friendly, please reach us at our website. Anyone interested in obtaining support for fathers through our free programs and services? Please contact us at Life Coaching and Fundamentals of Fatherhood Program. And finally, we invite our entire community to our free event park with Dad this Saturday from 11 to 2 p.m. at Highland Park. There's going to be free food and lots of fun events for fathers and their families. Thank you for taking the time to learn about our Long Beach Father Friendly initiative and join us in creating a truly father friendly city for all. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Yeah, let's hear it for our health department, our father friendly initiative. Okay, so a couple of things. So we've received this presentation, this motion, as the city council endorsed the nine father friendly principles that are outlined in the motion and were covered in the presentation. And then secondly, we're going to ask that our city takes this. So recently, the state of California took steps to acknowledge the barriers that fathers face when caring for small children in public. I've learned this over the last three years and have taken action to help balance the scale so fathers are accommodated in the same way that mothers are. So effective January of this year, Assembly Bill 1127 requires at least one diaper changing station to be available, just one to both men and women at all newly constructed or newly renovated state and local government buildings, entertainment arenas, large retail buildings and restaurants with occupancy of 60 people. So that's a new state law. It's a step in the right direction. So Long Beach, we want to support this and we want to fully embrace this. And so that's why I'm proposing that we create a plan we want. We've discussed with city staff coming up with a plan to think about our public facing government buildings. So, for example, if is a beach, all our beach restrooms are all one sex. Now they're all gender neutral. So you wouldn't have to retrofit every one of your restrooms. Just one. Just one. The you know, so we would need to look at some calls, come up with a plan, and then it's the right time. Because as we go into the budget conversation this year, next year, we can think about what it takes to make sure our new civic center, when it opens, our new main library when it opens, are our facilities. As we move forward, we think about we want to encourage fathers not to just simply hand the baby to mom because and use the excuse that, hey, you've got to change this station. We should carry on weight, too, right? Father should be able to change those diapers and not use that as an excuse. So we want to make sure that we do that as a city. So that's. Emotion. I want to close this just by inviting people to park it with dads. That's Saturday, that Saturday, June 23rd at Highland Park in North Long Beach. And you can expect basketball, barbecue, boxing workshops, face painting, giveaways. So dads join us out in Park. We're going to have a good time with our kids. Thanks a lot. And so next, we thank you. So next we have council member. Thank you, Vice Mayor Richardson. And I want to thank you for inviting me to join you on this very important initiative here. You know, you let our grandfathers and my grandfathers stay active. And, you know, all I could do with we've been a grandfather in grandparenting with my new my grandson, who's now about 13 months old. So he still he's still in a diaper change. He hasn't been potty trained yet. So he hangs out with us a lot. And when we go out to places, I go to a lot of meetings and he joins us with the meeting to getting already active in the community. But sometimes you need to change. And she will look at me and I look at her and all I can do is raise an eyebrow like, well, where do I go to change the baby? So a lot of that practice I get at home, but I'm not able to exercise it in the public because there's no change stations that I can go to. So I think this initiative is great. I think I'm glad that this is moving forward. And also, I hope that this program also includes how to parent, you know, parenting skills. I mean, that's one of the most important things that we all have to encounter. I have three kids of my own, and one of them was really challenging with me and basically told me, how did you learn how to parent or where did you learn how to parent? Well, you know, I learned from my parents and my dad and my mom how to parent. And there's not at my time anyway, there wasn't that opportunity to go to a class or or to get mentored in how to be a father and how to be a parent and how to be just a good human being. And I think that this program will go a long ways in doing that. And I hope that in future iterations of your program, that you would also include some some parenting classes and fathering classes, and not only to those that are already there, but perhaps for our future as well. And especially with the the the growth and the the more that we have with young, young fathers and unmarried parents, I think that's very important that we reach out to them as well and provide them with that opportunity to grow, to learn to be good parents, because we need to break the cycle of bad parenting that we that we experience every year when we see that the great majority of our incarcerated people in prisons are the are the victims, if you will, of single parents. And because of the break ups that that happened when there were they were young or the abuse that they experienced when they were young, so that we could catch people early in terms of how to be good parents, good fathers, I think we would make a significant impact in the future. So thank you. That makes me a regular, including me on this. Thank you. Accounts membership. What's it? Thank you. I'd like to thank Vice Mayor Richardson for bringing this item forward and also for inviting me to sign on. And I enthusiastically support the measure. And to commemorate this momentous occasion, our office produced a custom to you new dads. This is called a onesie, and you talked about an educational piece. So this has Snap's on the bottom for diaper changing. And on the on the business end, on the back, we put our motto go forth. Okay. So what I'd like to do is present this to Councilwoman Stacey Mongo Flanigan to her husband, actually, who can put this to good use in a few months. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Andrus. Yes, thank you very much. That was okay. I don't know. I have daughters and they're a little older than that. Mr. Super Nice. So I think active fathers are not only healthy in the family setting, but they set an example for the future generation. You know, the item of baby changing stations, I think, is very it's a given now in this day and time because both men and women change babies. I really think that starting this is starting point and these changing and changing tables in our park facility is something that is very needed. So, man, get ready. If you haven't done that, get ready for it. Stacey, I know we're going to get these things taken care of. So I want to thank you for. Councilwoman, you know, Vice Mayor, thank you for allowing me to be on inside. But you could continue again because you were doing it. So I guess not. Councilmember Pearce. I just want to thank you guys for for recognizing all the fathers out there and making sure that us women don't have to listen to the excuses anymore, that there's not a changing table because we get that a lot. But really, I mean, having changing station seems like something that we should already have. I can't tell you how many floors and weird spaces and countertops that we've had to change babies at. So we really appreciate you guys, not only for the changing stations, but just recognizing the important role that fathers have. And and my dad watches every Tuesday. I've only he's only been in my life for two years. So I just want to give him a shout out since he's watching right now and saying that having a father figure is really important no matter when they come into your life. So thank you, guys. Q Councilwoman Drake. Well, I want to thank you for this item, too. And what do you know? The third district also. Has a onesie. It says Future Long Beach Leader has my logo on the back. So Councilwoman Mango, here you go. I think this is a great item. I will say I thank them. The men who signed on to the item might be the only men in the entire city who really want a changing room in the men's bathroom. Because it's very convenient that your wife's the only one who can change the diaper. But I think this is a really great item, and I agree with Councilwoman Pierce. I did not grow up with a father figure in my life. So I think it's important that we can do whatever we can to encourage it. And I think, you know, I love Councilman Super not talking about the snaps on the onesie because when we had our baby, I would dress them every day and take them to the Isabel Patterson Child Development Center, where he went to school, our oldest son. And the one day I was in a rush, I was in trial or something. I asked my husband to do it. I said, Can you just go put them in a onesie? And my son came out with a floaty pajama, which is not a onesie, with his tennis shoes crammed on over the foot, part of the footie pajamas, walking out ready for daycare. And I had to explain to my husband that that was not a onesie, that was pajamas. So I think doing everything we can to encourage co-parenting and equal parenting is fantastic. So thank you. Councilman Gonzalez thinks, Vice Mayor Richardson, for bringing this forward again. And I'll just say, you know, I'm tired of the excuses as well from my partner not being able to change our child. But now we have the light is at the end of the tunnel, which is so great. And Councilmember Mungo, I don't have a onesie. I do have a piece of chocolate for you, for your cravings. So I'd be happy to help help you on that end. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any public comment on this? Stephanie Cicero, second district. So last Tuesday or Monday, mass, get out the vote for the seventh District because I was up in Sacramento lobbying for some of the new cannabis laws up in Sacramento and brought my daughter, who I had a wonderful time meeting her representative. But unfortunately, in the middle, the meeting had to be changed. I would. At what point? At which point? I encountered the bathroom, men's bathroom at the office building in Sacramento, which lacks the changing table. Having this is incredibly important as a first step towards kind of towards the eventual goal of equal co-parenting in the city. However, I really strongly urge, as of as a continuation of this particular item, to continue exploring universal pre-K within the city and the creation of such as a municipal right. That would go a long way towards creating gender equity within parenting and improving the lives of children in the city. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. And then a closing of speakers. Less after the lady. After you. Good evening, mayor garcia and members of city council ama oswaldo ac. Cruz with the national comparison network as well as partner of the Engaging Fathers Advisory Network and board member for the Center for Family Policy and Practice. And first and foremost, a father and grandfather and want to just acknowledge all of all of the women who have had to pay double duty as mom and dad. And so I want to acknowledge you and thank you for having to do that. But it is our role now and our responsibility as men and fathers to step up and not only change the diapers, but be actively involved in the lives of our children. And so I'm here in support of this initiative. I believe that when men, fathers are involved in the lives of their children, in their family, that their children, our children can really thrive. And so I ask you and urge you to support this initiative. And thank you for acknowledging fathers. There's a lot of work that needs to be done to change the perception of fathers. It's not that we don't want to be involved. It's not that we don't want to be included. Oftentimes, we're not given the opportunity. And so this will help to create a culture that will cultivate fatherhood friendliness. Thank you. Thank you. And our last speaker. Good evening, mayor, vice mayor and council members. My name is Letizia Sanchez. I'm a senior program officer at First Fire Valley. And thank you for your consideration to endorse the nine father friendly principles in capital investment for baby changing stations. Evidence indicates that father engagement positively affects the social, behavioral, psychological and cognitive outcomes for children. Thank you once again. Q With that many members, please cast your votes. Nelson Karis. Thank you very much. Thank you for that. We're moving on to the item on cannabis.

Recommendation to direct City Manager to provide a status update on the progress of the City Auditor recommendations for Human Resources including hiring, onboarding practices, drug test policy, and tools for employees, commissioners and interns to file anonymously harassment claims in the next 90 days.

LongBeachCC_12082020_20-1227

Motion carries. I think, item 66 as our last item. Is that right, Madam Burke? Yes. Okay. Item 66 Communication from Councilmember Pearce, Councilwoman Zendejas, Councilmember, your UNGA recommendation to direct city manager to provide a status update on the progress of the city auditor recommendations for human resources. Councilman Pearce. Sorry, I didn't text. Motion to move forward. I talked to staff and we'd just like a public recap of where we are with our H.R. changes whenever staff is ready. Should be available in the next 90 days. Thank you. Okay, Griffith, there's a motion and a motion in the second about that. They have ask, is there any public comment? Yes, we have. Tiffany, D.V.. If any TV. Yeah. Okay. Last comment for the morning. Would like to see this as a continued discussion in the Human Relations Commission as they begin to. Approach in discussion with. The Families for Reconciliation and how those recommendations from that process report. On the impact. This. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes part of the comment. Okay. Roll call. Vote, please. District one. I talked to. I. District three. I. District four i. District five. I. District seven. I. District eight. Are. District nine. Motion carries. Okay. That concludes the agenda. I don't think I have anyone that's making any announcements on this. I don't see anyone plugged in for announcements. I'll just start again. Congratulations again to Councilmember Pearce and Vice Mayor Andrews. And with that, we will adjourn the meeting.

A bill for an ordinance amending Section 18-81, D.R.M.C., setting the salaries of elected officers for terms beginning July 15, 2019. A bill for an ordinance amending Section 18-81, D.R.M.C., setting the salaries of elected officers for terms beginning July 15, 2019. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 2-12-19.

DenverCityCouncil_02252019_19-0120

Councilwoman Sussman has called out Council Bill 19 0055 for a postponement. Miss, anything? All right, now, Secretary, would you please put the first item on our screens? And, Councilman Flynn, will you please put Council Bill 19 0120 on the floor? Yes, Mr. President. Move the council bill 19, dash one to be ordered published. It has been moved and seconded questions or comments by members of Council or Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. Let me switch back to the other screen. First of all, I want to make it really clear that I respect the the consideration that every member gives to this every four years. The city charter literally requires us to vote on this one way or the other, to set the salaries for the next term of office for all elected officials. That's the 13 council members. The mayor, the auditor and the clerk and recorder voters gave us a very good roadmap about 16 years ago, I believe, for taking the politics out of it or minimizing the politics of setting the pay raises. And it sets two measurements. And one is the cumulative four year increase in the average is the average or the median wage of the career service employees. It doesn't matter because that's not the one we're using or the cumulative increase in the consumer price index for the Denver metro area. And we cannot exceed the lower of those two. And for this four years, as is true in most four years, it is the CPI that we're using as the index. And that's a very good road map because I remember a lot of how political it could have. It always was prior to 2003. And in fact, we lag even four years behind because for this coming term of office, we are using the benchmark of consumer price index for the prior four years going back to 2015. So it could be argued that we're even four years behind in approving this. Nevertheless, I'm voting no on this and I would ask my colleagues to take these points into consideration, even though it's it's entirely reasonable to follow the voters instruction in the charter. I'm asking my colleagues to take these points into consideration and join me in taking a four year timeout from pay raises for the elected officials. Our positions are just fundamentally different from city employees in the career service. If a traffic engineer over in public works believes that he or she is underpaid in the market, they look to other jurisdictions or the private sector for their advancement, and they may they may find employment elsewhere. A manager in the building department may look outside the city for a better salary. That's why our H.R. department spends so much time doing pay surveys and adjusting adjusting the wage scales that the city uses to make sure that the city not only attracts but can keep the best talent for our agencies. This reasoning, though, does not apply to us and our positions. These positions are not on a career path for advancement. We are temporary placeholders. We act as a body. We are 13 individuals, but we only act as a. Audie. And we hold these jobs temporarily for eight or 12 years. So I don't have to take a test to be promoted to council member first class. Right. It just doesn't work the same way. If I felt the page is not sufficient here. It's not like I would start to look around and maybe I'll look at the L.A. or New York City Council. I'm going to move up to other city councils. This is just a fundamentally different citizen legislative position, and it's not like the current salary is not attracting people to run for office. Right now. There are currently on the street 61 individuals who are circulating petitions to earn one of these elected positions. That's more than four years ago when we actually had six open seats on this body. And in fact, right now we are earning more than the governor of Colorado. Our salaries are higher than than the governors. In 1991, this council salary first surpassed the $30,000 a year mark. I was sitting right over there where Andy and David are sitting, and I was thinking, Wow, they just passed $30,000 and I was covered by a Union Guild contract and I was actually earning more than the council members. I think I don't think Andy or David can can say that they're earning $90,000 now. In fact, council salaries have tripled since then, whereas the Social Security Administration data shows you the average American wage earner over that same time frame has gone up in annual wages only 130% in the same time period. The median income for a single person household in Denver is about $63,000. Tomorrow in the Finance and Governance Committee, as Councilwoman Cannick noted, we will hear a bill that would raise the minimum wage for workers on city, on city projects and in city buildings to $15 an hour. Against this background in data, even though the voters have given us permission to follow the formula that's in the charter to set our salaries in the fashion proposed in this ordinance, I believe it's appropriate that we consider for the 20 1923 term of office that we take a pass on elected official pay increases and I will vote no on it. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Seeing no other questions or comments. Madam Secretary, roll call. Flynn No. Black Brooks High. Hernan Cashmere. High. Can each. Lopez I knew. No. Ortega Hi. Sussman Hi, Mr. President. Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting, announce the results. Eight eyes. Three names. Eight Eyes. Three names. Constable. 19 0120 has been ordered published. Madam Secretary, will you please put the next item on our screens? And Councilman Flynn, will you please vote? Council will 19 Dutch 0055 on the floor. I just. Moved move that followed.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 10 S Colorado Boulevard in Hilltop. Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from E-SU-D to E-TU-C (urban edge, single-unit to urban edge, two-unit), located at 10 South Colorado Boulevard in Council District 5. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 3-19-19.

DenverCityCouncil_04292019_19-0240

Council is reconvened. We have two required public hearings and one one hour courtesy public hearing this evening. If you could wrap up your conversations so that we can get started. Speakers should begin their remarks by telling the council their names and cities of residence and if they feel comfortable doing so, their home addresses. If you are here to answer questions only when your name is called, please come up to the podium, state your name and note that you are available for questions of council. Speakers will have 3 minutes and there is no yielding of time on the presentation of On the wall. You'll see your time counting down. Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to the council members. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilman Cashman, will you please put Council Bill 240 on the floor? Yes, Mr. President. I move the council bill 19 dash 0240 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. It has been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for Council Bill 240 is open. May we have the staff report? Good evening. Teresa Lucero with community planning and development. This is a rezoning at ten South Colorado Boulevard. The request is to rezone from urban edge single unit to urban edge to unit. So if this is in Council District five in the hilltop neighborhood. I'm sorry. I'm having a hard time seeing my thing, and it's not so. Okay, so it's in the hilltop neighborhood. And the request, as I said, is to rezone from single unit to two unit and. We're working on the technical side for working on tech support here. I'm standing up there and it doesn't show up. So. So anyway, so the urban edge context is that blend of suburban and urban. Here we go. And it is intended to promote and protect our residential neighborhoods. It allows urban house, random house, duplex, building form with 30 to 35 feet height limit on a 5500 square foot zone lot. So the existing zoning in the area, north and east is that urban edge single unit to the south is pretty G17, which I think council remembers. And then West is grade three, which is a row house zone district. So the subject property is vacant to the north and east are single unit residential to the south is a vacant church. To the west is a mix of two unit and multi-unit residential in the Cherry Creek neighborhood. So this gives you an idea of the form of the surrounding buildings, a lot of one and two storey buildings . And so that just gives you that idea as far as the process goes. The informational notice of receipt of a complete application went out in January of 2018. The application was. Revised. After some discussion with the neighborhood, so a notice of that revised application went out in December of 2018. And then Planning Board was held in March of this year. And they recommended unanimously approval. And then Ludie Committee was just March also. And then we're here and this hearing has been properly noticed. We do have one letter of support from the R.A. in the area, the Cranmer Park Hilltop Civic Association. And no other letters have come to staff. So you understand the criteria. We have plans that are relevant are Blueprint 20 2019 and Plan 2040 and the Boulevard Plan, which is a 1991 plan for Colorado Boulevard comp plan 2000 2040. Sorry, I keep saying 2000 increase development and housing units close to transit create a greater mix of housing options in every neighborhood. Ensure neighborhoods offer a mix of housing, encourage quality infill development consistent with the neighborhood, the surrounding neighborhood, and an infill development where infrastructure and services are already in place. Blueprint 2019. This is within the urban edge context that mix of suburban and urban, where there are low scale multi-unit and commercial areas embedded in one and two unit residential areas and a regular grid block pattern. The police type in Blueprint. Denver 2019 is low, medium residential. This is small scale multi-unit with single and two unit residential within single and two unit residential areas up to a height of three stories. Colorado Boulevard is a residential arterial, a high capacity transit corridor and a parkway. So the thought is this would be primarily residential. But because of the high capacity transit that is envisioned for Colorado Boulevard, this would be considered a transit corridor. And of course, on Parkway, as we seek to reestablish the landscaping of the parkway, Ellsworth Avenue is a designated local street. The growth strategy for this. Area, for this property, is all. Other areas of the city. That's the lowest one possible. They're anticipated to see 20% of the new housing growth in the city and 10% of the new employment by 2040. With that staff believes, Oh, I'm sorry, Boulevard plan the land use goals. No wholesale increase in overall development on the boulevard except where in on individual projects where a specific site it might work and seek to retain a diversity of land uses on the corridor. This plan was mostly an urban design plan for the corridor approved in 1991 and not very well implemented, I might say. So with that, the staff believes that this application is consistent with current Plan 2040, with Blueprint 2019 and the Boulevard Plan that by using a standard zoned district, we are contributing to the uniform application of zone districts for similar, similarly situated properties that excuse me by further that we're furthering the public health, safety and welfare by implementing our plans and allowing some redevelopment in our neighborhoods. And the justifying circumstance is changed conditions. There are multiple changed conditions in this area. As you know, the 3350 property to the south and multiple changes in the Cherry Creek area. So staff believes the changed conditions is an appropriate justifying circumstance and the urban edge context. That mix of urban and suburban with single and multi-unit zoned districts and sorry land uses is a is the hilltop neighborhood and Cherry Creek neighborhood. So staff believes the purpose and intent of the one and two unit zone district to further the existing pattern in the area is the appropriate zone district and with that staff recommends approval. Thank you very much. It looks like we have five, five individuals signed up to speak this evening. So I will call you up and step right up to the microphone as your time will begin. First up is Adrian Parra Chavez. All right. Next up is Mike Dick. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Council President Clark and council members. For the record, my name is Mike Court and Dick is spelled k r t n d c k. And I'm the principal of Land Incorporated. Having a business address, a P.O. Box nine Evergreen. I might add a very snowy evergreen this evening. Colorado 80437. I am joined by Adrian Parrish of his the the owner or the manager of ten Colorado LLC. That's the business entity that was formed for this project. Not present today is Jeff Kline with the Kline Design Group. Jeff is the project architect. We're very appreciative to have worked with three. Lucero, you're senior planner who just spoke about this case. I think we were one of the first cases that was reviewed against both your Denver Comprehensive Plan 2000 and the Council Apprehensive Plan 2040. And we did a similar exercise with Blueprint Denver basically meeting and conforming with those planning policies as well as the new comprehensive plan 2040. So we're very appreciative to have had Teresa work with us and give us some guidance as we navigated those plans. I'm a resident of Northwest Denver in commission member Rafael's District Espinosa's district, but live in live here but work in Evergreen. So it's good to be finally back in front of you all here in city county of Denver. Most of my work is along the front range. Additionally, we we've done a lot of work with with this project, specifically with some of the neighboring communities, more so it was Jeff Cline with Coin Design Group, again the architect. But I was brought in later on when some of the complexities of these various plans sets arose, and we wanted to go out and make sure that we complied or exceeded the language of both your former regulatory environment as well as your new one. So we really don't have a whole lot to say. What I'd like to do is put it back to you all. If you have specific questions of us and we've gone through the Land Use Committee, we've gone through the the hierarchy of your different hearings, and we think we've emerged with with a really good product that's going to be a good neighbor on on Colorado Boulevard. And I think there's a gentleman here that we've we've spoken with in the past representing those groups. And we're very happy to to have, at least my understanding, to have satisfied that group with with this proposal. So, again, I'll leave it to you if you have any questions of myself for the applicant, Adrian, and leave it at that. I know you've got a robust agenda ahead of you. Thank you very much. Next up, Chairman Sekou. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Chairman Siku. I am the founder organizer of the Black Star Action Movement for Self Defense and also will be the next mayor. 2019, a city council. We come before you to. Share with you some thoughts around this zoning change. And while it seems to be relatively small in scale. It represents another opportunity to address some of the housing needs of the city that has grown exponentially in a way that seems as if we're being driven to make things happen that necessarily might not be good for the city . In the long run. Down the road. 2020, what we do today will impact 2020. And so when we look at some of the criteria that is being proposed, we're talking about diversity of housing and also ensuring that we have a diverse population for the city and county of Denver. And so we support this. Zoning change in the hopes that. The owners of this property will consider. Making this housing available for people who can afford to pay for it, not what they can afford to make in terms of profit. But we got way too much housing for profit first. And people last. And so. Oh, I'll close with this. What we would like to see for poor people is for council to embrace them like they did the cats and dogs that was presented earlier today with a smile. To provide housing for the poor with everything on top of the poor. It works like this scientifically. When you have everybody on top of the poor and you lift the poor up. All the classes in ethnic groups rise also. So what's good for poor people is good for everybody. Thank you. Next up next up, Tom Hart. Good evening. My name is Tom Hart. I am the I the 4530 East Cedar Avenue. I am the zoning committee chair for the Criminal Park Hilltop Civic Association, and we support this rezoning. The owners approached us and showed us what they wanted to do. They took our suggestions and changed some things. What they're proposing to do is to build two duplex units here, total four units and what is now vacant land along Colorado Boulevard. And we are excited about this, are excited about having more housing options in our neighborhood. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next up, Jesse Pierce. Good evening. My name is Jesse LaShawn Pierce. I represent for Denver homeless out loud Black Stocks, a movement for self defense and positive action, commitment for social change. And I'm a at large candidate for the May 2019 election. I'm on top of the ballot. Make sure you vote May 7th. We are against this rezoning. We have a housing crisis in this town and this is not going to be affordable for anybody. I want to know what the RMR level is going to be for this, because this is for Cherry Creek Hilltop neighborhood. That's usually 80 to 120% at my level. So is this actually going to be affordable or it's just going to be more luxury housing that people cannot afford? We already have 23,000 units that are sitting vacant that nobody can afford. So those are the questions I have. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions for members of council on this item? All right. Seeing no questions. The public hearing four counts, bill 240 is closed. Comments by members of council. Councilwoman Sussman. Thank you very much. I want to thank the owners. Of the property and the folks that have been helping. Him design what can go here on the vacant lot. And particularly want to thank Tom Hart, our volunteer. Architect who helps the Kramer Park Hilltop Association with all. The zoning considerations. Appreciate everybody working together to create this project and look forward to seeing it when it's completed. Thanks very much. And I and I would encourage my. Fellow council people. To vote for this rezoning. Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. See no other comments. I'll just add. Thank you to staff. Went somewhere. There you are, Victor. Thank you for the comprehensive staff report. I think this clearly meets the criteria and I'll be voting yes today. Madam Secretary, roll call. SUSSMAN My black eye. Rose Espinosa. Hi. Flynn, I. Gillmor, I. Herndon All right. Cashmere. I can eat, right? Lopez I knew. Ortega, I. Mr. President. Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close voting. Announced Results. 1313.

A RESOLUTION affirming The City of Seattle’s support of immigrant communities; stating its support of the Deferred Action Childhood Arrival (DACA) program; recognizing the roots and community DACA recipients have built in the Seattle/King County region and beyond, and The City of Seattle’s commitment to an inclusive, welcoming City and advancing policies to protect vulnerable communities while denouncing national and federal policies and rhetoric targeting immigrants and immigrant communities.

SeattleCityCouncil_10022017_Res 31779

The the bill is signed and the chair will sign it the is passed. That's what I want to say. The bill's passed in the journal so please the read the report of the full council agenda item one the short title please. The Report of the Full Council Agenda Item one Resolution 31779 from the City of Sale, Support of Immigration Immigrant Communities stating in support of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. McAllen Councilmember Gonzales for this one. Thank you. This resolution affirms the City of Seattle support of DOCA or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Act and clearly states that Dhaka beneficiaries and their families are here to stay. We do this primarily through the following ways, requiring that our Office of Intergovernmental Relations and our federal lobbying team prioritize the passage of a Clean Dream Act by Congress and that they do so swiftly. Opposing threats to withhold money from the city because of our sanctuary policies. Denouncing anti-immigrant. Show me your paper laws like the recent Texas Senate Bill four can, and by convening an inclusive stakeholder engagement process to help the city develop policies that preserve and protect our diverse communities. I want to reserve some comments for the end, but that's an initial description of the resolution. So I'd like to move for the adoption of the resolution to the extent I need a second. Also, can that any further comments from colleagues? I'm not seeing any. Why don't you continue, Councilmember Goodall? I'll send you close discussion. Great. I want to thank several different following groups and organizations for helping us with drafting the language of the resolution, and of course, thank them for their ongoing efforts to lead these efforts in making sure that we are advancing the rights of our immigrant communities, particularly as it relates to our youth who are undocumented. And those folks, our organizations are the Washington Dream Coalition. They're representatives from the Washington Dream Coalition here today, the Seattle Immigrant and Refugee Commission, One America and the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project. And I will also also want to thank the union for my office, who really helped draft this this resolution. And this is her. These are her 2/1 big resolutions out of the office. And she did a great job. And I just want to publicly acknowledge her for all of her tremendous efforts and work in drafting two outstanding resolutions and bringing community together to be able to celebrate in this way. DOCA, as we all know, is under threat right now. It is something that was won by the undocumented community as a result of young undocumented Americans in our community fighting like heck to lead the way to get us DOCA. And under this federal administration, we are now seeing that that is under threat and we will be relying on on these young leaders to be able to tell us what it is they need to hold them up and to make sure that they continue to be part of this country. And I just and to you all personally, I know some of you personally and have had a pleasure of of working with you and community. And I just want to give you from a personal note from myself, which is that I admire all of your courage every day to really stand up for who you are and for your values. And I hope to be able to work with you and support everything that you need to be able to continue in this fight. So thank you for everything that you're doing. Thank you. So this resolution has been moved and seconded. I'm not seeing any further comments. All those in favor please signify by saying I am right. And he opposed. The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Please read the agenda item number two.

Final Passage of Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code Chapter XXVII, Section 27-3 (Citywide Development Fees) and Approving City of Alameda Development Impact Fees Update and Nexus Study, dated June 2019. (City Manager 2110)

AlamedaCC_07162019_2019-7059

We want to get out of here the same night we started, remember? And we're still on consent calendar people. Okay, so then we move to our last consent calendar item, which is five P and I pulled this item because I have gotten some questions I'm going to ask our recreation parks director, Amy Wooldridge. There she is if she would come up. I've had some questions about why the golf course was not a part of the recent Fisher study that the council considered. Since this is the final passage of our ordinance amending the the fee update. Absolutely. Thank you, Mayor. As the Ashcraft Amy Wooldridge, Interim Assistant City Manager, Recreation and Parks Director. Yes, it's true. Creek a park is a public park amenity and it's open to the public for a fee. We did in this process we look very carefully at this. We considered including it, but given that it would have significantly increased the development impact fee because it's nearly it's several hundred acres, we were being intentionally cautious and conservative by not including it. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't include other athletic fields. Close that door, please. Thank you. It doesn't mean we shouldn't include other athletic facilities, such as soccer fields. And part of it was that we considered it a specialized amenity. And again, we were aiming to be careful and cautious in our analysis. And we given that we have dozens of something like a soccer field or a baseball field and one creek, a park . We we were aiming to be careful in our analysis. Okay. I appreciate that. Is any explanation. Thank you. Does anyone have any further questions or need for clarification? Okay. So hearing none, do I have a motion to approve the final passage of this ordinance removed? We do a motion and act as second.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2137 Glenarm Place in Five Points. Approves a map amendment to rezone property from R-3, UO-3 to G-RX-5 (former chapter 59 residential zoning to general urban), located at 2137 Glenarm Place in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-23-21.

DenverCityCouncil_01032022_21-1406

We have three public hearings tonight for those participating in person when called upon. Please come to the podium on the presentation monitor. On the wall you will see your time counting down for those participating virtually. When called upon, please wait until our meeting. Host promotes you to speaker. When you are promoted, your screen will flash and say Reconnecting to meeting. Please don't leave the meeting. You will be reconnected and will need to turn on your camera. If you have one and your microphone, you will see your time counting down at the bottom of your screen. Once you have finished speaking, you will change back to participant mode and see your screen flash one more time. All speakers should begin their remarks by telling the council their names and cities of residence, and if you feel comfortable doing so, their home addresses. If you've signed up to answer questions only, please state your name and note you are available for questions of council. Speakers will have 3 minutes. There is no yielding of time. If translation is needed, you will be given an additional 3 minutes for your comments to be interpreted will alternate between in-person and virtual for efficiency by calling in-person participants and then alternating to virtual participants. Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to the council members. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole, and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilmember Clark, will you please put Council Bill 21, Dash 1406 on the floor for final passage? Yes, Council President. I move the Council Bill 1406 to be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded the required public hearing for Council Bill 21 Dash 14 zero six is open. May we have the staff report and I believe we have Fran Benefield on the Zoom call. And so we'll go ahead and bring Fran up and have her introduce herself. Sorry. Council president is this is this for 2137 Glen Jones. It's 21. It's 2114 zero six. And so I guess. Brad, I'm sorry. It is you. Go ahead, Brad. Friends, the next one? Yeah. All right. It sounds like you can share your. Saying that. Okay. Yes. Okay. Great. Good evening, councilmembers. My name is Brad Johnson. I'm a senior city planner with CPD here today to present to you a rezoning request for 2137 Glenarm place. This is from old code r three with au3 overlay two. grx5. This is in Council District nine in the Five Points neighborhood. Here is the site just sitting between 22nd Street and 21st Street there on the west side of going on just to have a block off of the welland street light rail corridor there. The request here is again for a general urban neighborhood context residential mixed use with the maximum height of five storeys. This allows a mix of uses, but with the grx5 zoning, it stipulates that anything above the ground floor is limited to residential or lodging uses. So like an office use, for example, would not be allowed on the upper floor. This zone district permits development of the town hall townhouse or the shopfront building forms. And with this zone, are this property currently being an old code zoning? The applicant is looking to redevelop the site with a new zoning code applied. The existing zoning, as I mentioned, is are three. That's essentially an old code high density residential zone district. It does have the Euro three or the historic structure use overlay district, which is an overlay district intended to encourage adaptive reuse of landmark structures. There are no landmarks structures on this side, so that you have three is not really applicable to this site, even though it does retain that in its current zoning. The surrounding all story. To the northwest you see the higher intensity zone districts, downtown Arapahoe Square districts there to the northeast and southeast to GMU, three, two directly to the southwest, you have X five, and then you can see another block or group of properties up there to the northeast that is also X five. And that's, of course, the zone district has been requested on the subject site. This is a map of the existing land use. And of course, the site itself is is a surface parking lot right now. And I want to point out to if you guys can see this, I'll speak to it. The property to the Southwest shows in the assessor data as being industrial, when in actuality it's a vacant property and a surface parking lot. And then to the northeast across 22nd Street, this shows as being mixed use. I do believe this to be a pure residential project. I'll show you a picture now of that. So looking at those two sites at the top left is a picture of that kind of traditional road house to the northeast. And then right at the bottom left, that's a photo of that vacant structure. I mentioned this immediately to the southwest. And then in the foreground of that photo is the surface parking lot that sits on that site now. And then you see, of course, other pictures of the site itself and other properties that are surrounding. We followed the required process for an official maximum in terms of posting and notification and hearings that brought us to the city council public hearing. In terms of outreach. We did receive two letters of support from Arnaud's, both from the Clement's Historic District Neighborhood Association and the Capitol Hill United Neighborhoods. Arnaud, I think both of those letters spoke to, you know, a level of excitement about the potential development of what's now a surface parking lot. And we're particularly in support of development of the site, given its location proximate to downtown and right now or around the corner from a couple of different light rail stations. We didn't receive any comments from individuals. So moving to the review criteria is starting with consistency with adaptive plans. These are the plans that are applicable to the site. Starting with comp plan 2040, we did find this rezoning would be consistent with numerous goals and policies of Conte plan 2042, just a handful of which are shown here and more would be detailed in your staff report. To Blueprint Denver starting with neighborhood context. The property is designated as General Urban, which pushes for multi-unit residential with some nonresidential mixed use embedded on regular grid sort of orthogonal blocks, as you see in this photo here. So with the general urban zone district that was being that has been requested, we did find that to be consistent with Blueprint's neighborhood context. Feature place type on the property for Blueprint. Denver is high medium residential, which calls for this kind of medium scale multi-unit uses with some neighborhoods serving nonresidential uses, perhaps mixed in being a supportive blueprint. Denver, in this place type, actually calls for up to eight stories of height. The five zone district certainly is consistent with that within the range of that. But we're only allowed to go up to five stories. Featured street types that are adjacent to the site are both local and designated streets and blueprint. Denver does provide for a variety of options in terms of land use and building forms that would be adjacent to the street type. And therefore, we did find this rezoning to generics five to be consistent with future street type. Growth area strategy is all other areas. The city which calls for collectively properties designated as this round the city to accommodate 10% of new jobs and 20% of new housing units through 2040. And given the fact that this is requested, zone district would allow both housing and nonresidential uses. We did find the request to be consistent with growth area strategy. And then also of course blueprint Denver pushes for properties to be re zoned out of old code form or chapter 59 and into the Denver zoning code, which this rezoning would. And so that's another key element of blueprint differ that this rezoning is consistent with. So moving into area plans start with the downtown area plan. There's several, many, many high level policies in that plan that this rezoning would would be consistent with. I point out a couple of critical ones here that are specific to this area that call for redevelopment of surface parking lots and underutilized properties and with a focus on properties that are within close proximity to the one street light rail transit line. So given that we did find this rezoning would be consistent with the downtown area plan. Well, some of the northeast downtown neighborhoods plan. That plan has a lot of high level sort of qualitative policies like this that you see on the screen now that we find the rezoning to be consistent with in terms of generating pedestrian oriented development, better connectivity and in higher intensity uses in proximity to transit. That Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan also has a land use map in it, and it identifies the subject site as transit oriented development or TOD. So in that regard, it calls for transit oriented developments that push for housing and intensity of of of housing, employment and other mixes of uses in proximity to two transit station and transit line. There's also a height map in this plan, and you'll notice here that the plan, the northeast downtown neighborhood plan, calls for a maximum of five storeys, whereas the blueprint feature place type called for up to eight. So there's a small discrepancy there. And you can kind of see on this on this map that kind of a half block there is providing a transition from the. Higher allowances the plan calls for to the northwest and then this box are providing a five story transition to the more low skill neighborhoods off to the southeast. So given that we did find that your five would be consistent with this area plan. We also found that this rezoning would result in uniform district regulations and would further the public health, safety and welfare of the community, primarily through implementation of adopted plans, but certainly providing an opportunity to fill facilitate redevelopment of of a vacant parking lot in close proximity to a transit station. Justifying circumstances. I mentioned the plans calling for for transition to the new codes. That's relevant for the Chapter 59 circumstance as well as just the land uses and character that the area plans call for. And then, of course, you all know that this is an area that has transformed significantly in recent years as you see development taking place along the one street corridor. In a medium proximity to this site. And then finally, we did also find that this rezoning would result in and would be consistent with neighborhood context, zoned district purpose and intent. And so given that and based on the criteria for review in the Denver zoning code, staff does recommend approval of the application. 2020 1i-00128. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Brad. This evening, we have four individuals signed up to speak and our first two speakers are in chambers and the other two are online. And so first in chambers, Chris Cox here. Yes. Thank you. My name is Chris Fox. Here I am, the division president for Storyville, Denver, where the owner of this property as well as the applicant for the zone map amendment. I'm really here just to answer questions, but Brad did a good job of explaining several of the things that I would have conveyed. So I just want to cover a couple of additional items which may provide context. This property would likely have been rezone to CMCs five back in 2010. There were at that time existing entitlements for a townhome project, and that's the reason why it got grandfathered into the Chapter 59 code. That project failed during the financial crisis of 2820 ten. Never got built. That's why we are where we are today. We had initially sought S.R. eight zoning. We felt that a story project would be most appropriate here. We abandoned that effort based on the inconsistency with the Northeast Neighborhoods Plan showing the five storey height map. And but, you know, through that process, we worked extensively with Clements group, as well as John, as well as Curtis Park Neighbors and others and DDP, and also met over probably two years with several groups. The decision to go for Rex as opposed to an MLS zone district was in large part a reaction to the neighborhood not wanting to see an office project there. So Rex requires residential on the upper storeys, but allows for mixed use on the lower level, which still allows the idea for for Todd and mixed uses to happen there. The adjacent condition is an 18 storey project directly across the island that actually is inconsistent with the height map and the zoning that you just saw because it's 12 and 18 or 12 and 20. This is 18 across the whole site as well as a 50 story parking garage directly across the alley. So building a five storey project basically just blocks the parking garage, which is currently unscreened. It's very much a two year deal location. We have two light rail stops within two or three blocks, either direction, both on Walton and 18th and California. It's also a ten minute walk to pretty much probably several landmarks, including Coors Field, including the Pavilion Mall, 16 strip mall, including Safeway, as well as going down to 17th for restaurants and such. So it's a very walkable location, very good location. It's actually on the corner of the 5280 loop loop. With that. I mean, our goal basically is to facilitate redevelopment of the property. It's currently a vacant parking lot. It does have several safety issues from time to time, depending on the homeless enforcement and the neighborhood is very much in support of it. So I'm happy to answer any additional questions. All right. Thank you. Our next speaker is Mike Hunt. And I have met Mike as in chambers. Let's see if Mike Hunt is online. Okay. It doesn't look like we have Mike with us. We're going to go ahead and move online then Jesse Paris. Yes. Good evening. May I be heard? Yes. Yes. My name is just the sort of person I'm representing for black, small for self defense, positive action, commercial social change was the Union Party of Colorado, the East Denver Residents Council and for a long black nose. And I'll be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. I was initially against this rezoning, but hearing the presentation brought me up to speed on what was happening in regards to this rezoning. I just had a few questions. If there is going to be residential place here, what would be the amount level for the residential housing that's going to be placed here? Has there been a parking study done and has there been a traffic study done? If the occupant occupants using to please answer those questions, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker online is Keith Pryor. I. Keith Pryor, 2418 Champ Street. Very close proximity to the site. This is a TOD site, which is a transit oriented development site. It is walking distance within the downtown area and it will be on the 50 to 80 loo. All our access to amenities and bicycling and walking and traffic mitigations obviously are very much in place. And so a traffic impact study is pretty much not relevant for the site given the access and plethora of not only TOD but also bike and walking access as well as Broadway is the major corridor as in Colfax, all within walking distance is as I am very much in support of this rezoning. He did work with the neighborhoods, both Curtis Park as well as San Rafael and Uptown and also Capitol Hill, United Neighbors. And I believe that the X is the correct way to go. We obviously are in a housing crisis and need to have additional housing units built, especially in this location that allows people to access a 15 minute city and really not have to have a car, which would help with climate change and having people more self resilience than relying on a car to get themselves throughout the city and adding to our congestion and our air pollution. So having this building here obviously would be a great addition as well as solve a lot of other issues that we're currently finding in our city, not only from the homeless situation, but just to the lack of housing that we have in the area. So very much in support and I would encourage council to support this rezoning. As was stated, it does meet all of the criteria for our adopted plans and as the applicant himself stated, this would have gotten resound had it not had an additional site plan already approved that did fail. And so that's why it is in the old code that it does not conform to today's zoning code. And what has gone to the either JEAN-MAX or NCR expired. So this is a great compromise for the development and a great win for the neighborhood and definitely feel like this is the right solution moving forward. So to support this rezoning. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 21, Dash 14 zero six. Councilmember Hines. Thank you. Council President. May I ask the applicant to come forward? I might also have questions for her for CBD as well, but start with the applicant. Hi. Thank you for for coming. Just a little context. I used to live, so this isn't my district. So I wasn't part of the conversations. And certainly I'm sure you've found the right person to do so. I don't have as much context from the you know, from this conversation. So that's part of the reason why I'm asking questions. I used to live two blocks from there, though, so I moved to the uptown neighborhood in May of 2008. I started working in Uptown in April 2007. I lived in Uptown Square for three years, starting in December of 2008, and then I bought in 1950 Logan, the condominium there, the C-Max 12 in October 2011, and then we left there in March of this year. So I'm very familiar with uptown. That's not technically uptown, but it is. Yes. So I'm very, very familiar with this area. You mentioned that that you considered and I mentioned the zoning of my building a c maxwell Raffo Square is even taller, but you mentioned that there was a conversation for potentially eight stories and that was the answer was no. Well, we wanted to do eight stories. We were seeking a CRC. It has to do with the zoning code X. It was our okay. But the challenge was because of the inconsistency with the Northeast Denver concept map, which showed a five story zoning there, which is about ten years older than Blueprint or, you know, older than Blueprint . Denver There was an inconsistency and staff could not 100% support that without saying it was inconsistent with at least one plan that opened up the door for a conversation about adding an affordable housing component. The minimum was, you know, a 10% component. And for us to do condo, which is really what we want to do there, we want to do condo for sale, housing. The economics just didn't work. It didn't make sense to go from 5 to 8 storeys with the addition of a 10% minimum affordable housing component. The economics don't work, and I know that the analysis on the current proposed Iot show says otherwise. I can tell you from the actual real world numbers, it doesn't work. So we were unable to pursue condo at the moment. There's, you know, three very large projects already that just were delivered both. To from a Lexan or. TCR, one from Lenore, and then Greystar is coming out with another 350. So we're not we're not trying to do more rental housing near transit. We're trying to do for sale. And we couldn't make it work and made stories. So you are still considering for sale? Yes. Bless you. We are woefully inadequate with our for sale properties. And in uptown, I mean, you know, my building at 1950, Logan was for sale. You've got the Portofino, we've got 1935 Grant and then you've got a one Lincoln Tower. And those are the for sale, you know, areas. But everything else has been built around them has been a whole lot built. This park is about the only other thing even nearby that's been recent over in Curtis Park. Yeah. And so we're woefully short of for sale, um, dense, uh, construction. So, so thank you for, for considering that. Obviously we're not talking about that tonight and we can't hold you to the fire necessarily, but I'd like to, um, but so it's a five stories, not eight. Um, and that abandoned building that isn't you, that's not, is not. Part of our property, that's part of 2115 GLENARM We had tried to acquire it. It's been challenging. Well. Okay. Um, it is challenging to the neighborhood too. So I'm sorry that we were sorry that that wasn't added to the. It is currently it was being marketed and we're hoping for a redevelopment there by another party. So. Okay. And. I think that's I think that's those are all the questions that I had. I just wanted to. I think that it is a really good carry. Oh, I do have one other question. The 50 to 80 trail also very interested in a 50 to 80 trail. Thank you for whoever testified about a year or two ago. The branding change from the 50 to 80 loop to the 50 to 80 trail. Um, but, uh, I would hope that one. I would hope it becomes a reality and I'm doing my best to make that happen. And then to, I would hope that if you, um, if you move forward with development, obviously pending a vote tonight, I would, I would strongly encourage, you know. Building something that works with the 52 editorial. And I mean, I feel like it will be transformative for our city center. And it, along with Spurs, will help connect, you know, other diverse communities to a you know, with our Shared Streets program will really help us break Denver's dependance on cars and that neighborhood. I didn't have a car at all for four years, so it is very pedestrian friendly and cyclist. I think it could could use some opportunities to become more cyclist friendly, like with a 50 to 80 trail. And we do hope to embrace that, you know, the tiered nature of the site and, you know, really kind of celebrate that, the bicycling aspect, etc.. So it does affect our thoughts on parking on on bike storage as well as bike maintenance and those types of things. Yeah. And to that point about bike storage and maintenance, as you're considering your architectural design, if you can place the bike storage in a place that's not visible to the street, um, I mean, that seems kind of obvious now, but we didn't, you know, we didn't do that at 1950. Logan And some of the other areas didn't do that either. So and thank you. I think you Councilperson. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Hines. Not seeing anyone else in the queue for questions. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 21, Dash 14 zero six and will go online first to the District Representative. Councilwoman CdeBaca. Do you have any comments this evening? No comments. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Hines. Thank you, council president. I just would say, I know this isn't my district. This is my hood. And I really like the idea of taking something that has been underutilized and and activating it. So thank you for bringing this forward. I will certainly support this tonight. Thank you, Councilmember Hines. And seeing that this does meet the rezoning criteria, I'm happy to support it as well. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 21, Dash 14 zero six, please. CdeBaca. I saw your. Clarke. All right. Flynn. I. Herndon, i. I. Cashman. Ortega. Sandoval. I. Torres. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close voting and announce results. Ten Eyes. Ten Eyes Counsel build 21 dash 14 zero six has passed. Thank you to folks who spoke at that last hearing and Brad for the presentation. Councilmember Clark, will you please put council Bill 21, Dash 1431 on the floor for final passage?

Recommendation to approve the destruction of records for the Legislative Department, Seventh Council District; and adopt resolution.

LongBeachCC_08052014_14-0562

Can I'll go and do that? Item four and five have been requested to be pulled by Councilmembers Gonzales as well as council members. Austin. So I will first to maybe Mr. City Court. Did you want to begin by kind of giving a brief on those items or. Councilman Gonzales. Okay. So on four and five, the destruction of records. I just wanted to first off, they're potentially a very important and substantial primary sources of language history. So with that, I wanted to direct City Clerk to work with the Historical Society of Long Beach on the management of these records and perhaps digitizing them. And then also report back in about 30 days and then just going forward to continue working with community groups in this respect. Okay. I was second that. Seconded by Councilmember Austin to the motion in a second on the on the item. Mr. Herrera, did you have any comments on that? I wanted to thank the council members for pulling this item, as well as the public for paying attention to our agenda. Putting this on the agenda serves its purpose where the public is notified consistent with the Long Beach Municipal Code of records about to be destroyed. And we will hold those in abeyance until we come back to the council. Thank you. So there's a motion on the floor to take any public comment on the item. Mayor. This is items four and five. Items four and five. Yes. Larry, good. You click as we address specifically zeroing in on four and the destruction of the records from the Cal and and O'Neill administration of certainly the integrity of those two terms has never been in question. Like our esteemed governor, they got a standing invitation to stand side by side with Caesar's wife. The last eight years, however, is an entirely different matter, which prompted me to ask right at this point to the city attorney, what assurances do we have? That Rosemary Woods will never have access to these tapes or any future tapes or records. Mr.. Where can we ever speak to the the agenda? Continue your. Career? I think it's very important to understand the integrity and the level of integrity we have with records, period, and I think the concept of destroying the records of the past eight years. When on the heels of learning that there will be a federal and state investigation relative to a number of people in that. Within that past eight years raises. So serious questions and strains, even the weakest of olfactory senses. And I would suggest moving forward, if there's no objection from Mayor Cal or Beverly O'Neil of destroying their records. But hold, pending the outcome of a federal and state investigation of the complicity relative to the matter, which was earlier referred to , i.e. in that ten page package, dealing with the complicity to gift illegally $300,000 to a select few. Delete the first two there. O'Neals and Madam Park and Ernie Kels. If they don't have an objection. But do not destroy these records. Think apps and such. Those who vote for such a call, the City Council might in fact be viewed as complicit in addition to ones they've already uncovered. Thank you. Thank you, Speaker. Evening again, Mr. Mayor. Gary Shelton. My address is on file and I'm really glad the item was pulled. And for the reason it was pulled, it sounds like we have a a good solution to, you know, these things come up every once in a while and they're kind of pro forma in the way they work. And what I appreciate is that what I was concerned about in simply reading the item, which was somehow or another, we need this to be a last call for folks who might think that they have some use for these old records. And that's exactly what's happened. I didn't realize that it was easy, as it seems it's going to be, to create that gap of time for folks who are listening and thinking, Gee, maybe I am interested in finding out what was said or what some internal memos were or some emails, that sort of thing. Issues that have come and gone, which haven't really gone, they're still on our table today in the period is covered by these records are like the disillusion of the RDA, the creation of the housing element and the downtown plan. The Civic Center request for proposals, which is still in the mix right now, has been going on for a long time. The Belmont Pool, Queensway Bay in the park, specifically in regards to replacing the cyclone racer or maybe its access to South Pine some way from North Pine. The Gerald Desmond Bridge is an issue that's been on the in the records for a long time and certainly public safety staffing, which is all part of the budgeting that we've heard and we'll be hearing next week also. So I'm glad to hear that this motion has been made. I think it's fitting that the historical society would be obtaining these records, especially that they would be digitized because that's a really economical way to save records for a very long time. I would ask if there's a way that the public will understand when that digitization, if that's what they're going to do, will come back and if it will be in fact, made public, and how that might be publicized as to what their output becomes. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Good evening. My name is Craig Hendricks, and I am the secretary of the Historical Society of Long Beach. And I just wanted to come here. Tonight and thank the mayor and the city council members for pulling those items off the consent calendar, because a destruction. Of public records should never. Happen, certainly in a city the. Size of Long Beach. And those records are could be very, very valuable in the future. So we really would like to thank you for pulling us off the consent calendar. And we look forward to working with city staff. To find a way to preserve these records. But speaking on behalf of the City of the Historical Society, we will gladly accept these historical records for our archives. So thanks very much. Thank you. Next speaker. Mr. Mayor. No council people. I'm not a resident of Long Beach, but I'm a resident of the great county of Los Angeles in the state of California and a friend of a little plant called Marijuana. And I know it's another agenda item, but I'm concerned about these records, too, because when I was last in the city council chamber, the mayor asked me to leave because I'm a medical marijuana patient and I'm concerned about the five or six years of those records concerning the all the years I came here and testified as a man living with AIDS for 20 years, that stood up to the federal government and has been in the room with two presidents , one that inhaled and one that didn't, and have the benefits of knowing that 23 states in this country have legalized medical marijuana. And I was just at the White House on the 4th of July for the 45th annual smoking. And if I was to destroy my records of the 20 years of the historical use of AIDS drugs to keep me alive and marijuana to keep me alive, we would have a big problem. So I'm glad to hear the Historical Society. And you have changed your mind about destroying Mayor Foster's records, because I believe my friend Eric Holder and the United States Justice Department might want to subpoena those records and even the records of some of the council people that are now mayors or or our new council people, because there is corruption in the marijuana world, including politics , because the mayor of Upland went to jail recently for his corruption and state Senator Leland Yee, who some of you might know is going to jail for his corruption involving marijuana. And I don't want to say that you, Mr. Garcia, will go to jail in the future like the man over here said, because of your corruption with marijuana or if you're not corrupt with marijuana. But and I don't know how much of the time I have a minute left. You know, living with AIDS for 20 years hasn't been an easy thing. You know, nausea, vomiting, taking 40 pills a day for many years, taking seven or ten pills a day and having a couple of puffs on my medical marijuana makes me hungry. And there's a lot of AIDS patients that live in Long Beach. And you're aware of all the homosexuals and gay people and straight people that have AIDS, aren't you, Mr. Mayor? Garcia Because, you know, Long Beach has the highest incidence of AIDS in the state of California, besides the great city of Los Angeles, where I live, and San Francisco, where my friend Dennis Peron was on the phone with me a few minutes ago. Now, I came here because I'm concerned over you trying to limit things on another issue that I'll speak later, but I want to congratulate this issue. Yeah, I got a couple more minutes. I want to congratulate you, Mr. Mayor, for not throwing me out, for raising my voice a little bit like Mayor Foster. Maybe he was concerned about what they'll find in those records when my friend Eric Holder subpoenas them, because I'm asking the federal government like I did previous times, they're to investigate the entire county of Los Angeles, the city of Long Beach, the city of L.A. and the state of California, for upsetting the will of the rights of the people of Proposition 215, which we passed in 1996. Thank you. Sir. You have to identify yourself for the record. Richard Eastman, former HIV AIDS commissioner for the county of Los Angeles, representing 70,000 people living with AIDS in this great county. And I believe Long Beach is there. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Good evening, City Council. My name is Patrick Rhodium with the American Patients Rights Association. I just wanted to speak to you because, as you can tell, many medical marijuana groups are very heated over the subject of the X Mares records. And I'd like to thank you guys for pulling these items from the list, because we do not want these records destroyed. There's actually many groups that are interested in the mares records because of the issue that Mr.. He's been just brought to your attention. Yeah, there is a pending federal investigation and there are a lot of groups and a lot of attorneys that are looking forward to seeing the mayor's records. So we highly appreciate the fact that you guys were willing to recall these items, and we're looking forward to reviewing them as soon as they're made available. Thank you very much. We appreciate it. Thank you. There is a motion and a second on the floor. Count's embarrassed. Barossa. You have any comments? Okay with that? Members, please go ahead and cast your votes. And this is for Mr. City Attorney. Okay. For four and five. BOTH Right. Great. Motion carries nine zero. Okay. Thank you. With that, we're going to be moving on now to the regular agenda. Madam Clerk.

Final Passage of Ordinance Approving a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) (and Related Documents) between the City of Alameda and Alameda Point Partners, LLC (APP) for the Site A Development at Alameda Point. [Requires four affirmative votes] (Base Reuse 819099) [NOTE: THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT EXHIBITS ARE LENGTHY; HARDCOPY MAY BE VIEWED AT THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AND LIBRARY REFERENCE DESKS]

AlamedaCC_07072015_2015-1810

Final passage of ordinance approving a disposition and development agreement and related documents between the City of Alameda and Alameda Point Partners for a development in only two point. All right. Ken Petersen is our speaker on that. So did you want to come up and speak on five H. That's the. On site a this is the second. Yes. Yes, it's for the final passage. We voted on it at the last fact. There's two speakers after computers. Then we have Michael McDonagh. If there's anyone else that wants to speak on five, please turn on your slip at this point. Mr. Peterson. Thanks. By the way, just one little comment on the budget issue. The interim city manager, the city manager had a nice presentation and made some suggestions earlier in the presentation of the budget that would be helpful in conserving finances and helping us prepare for the future. And I think practically none, maybe none of the recommendations were actually taken and the council went and took other spending measures in the case of the of the site, a development. I was very impressed by the presentation that the developer made about six months ago. In some regards, they had some concerns about things that came from the meetings and that is a particularly I raised a number of questions in one of the forums that I think that hasn't been raised before or they're pretty obvious. Some of the issues had to do with such things as the question of what the value of the new housing would be in relieving the pressures upon the businesses and the employees, or housing or upon the housing needs of the city and the general area. After we talked about it, I said I didn't understand how that was going to work when they're going to compete, but people are going to compete for the housing with everybody else in the General Bay area. How that could actually help. And we agreed that it wouldn't really necessarily. Do much. But it was a matter perhaps of a wishful thinking or perhaps, as I recall from one of the senators, famous senators, to borrow this term. Well, we wouldn't fool the. And it won't fool me. We'll just fool the guys behind the tree as to how things work. That's true about a lot of development matters, what we call the enduring myths of development. And I think is sometime perhaps by a council members referral as somewhere we ought to talk about some of these things and put them to rest, get them out and see them, put them in the in the open era and put them to rest things that are not true, things that are repeated over and over again, or at least at best, partial truths and very misleading. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. McDonough. And he's the last speaker on this item. Good evening, mayor and council members and staff. Michael McDonough, Alameda Chamber President. Just wanted to reiterate the Chamber's support for the project side. Thank you for voting in unanimously at the last meeting for this project. I'm sure based on overwhelming support by the community and based on the infrastructure, the jobs, the fact that we'll be able to attract new businesses. The Chamber, as you know, supports this measure greatly and urge you to continue your yes vote tonight. Thank you. All right, counsel. Any comments? One emotion. Emotion of. Approval. You're removing approval. Second. I did you. Secondly, Jim. All right. So there's a second. Are there any comments? Nebraska? No. Did we have a second? Yes. Yes. A member already seconded. I'd like to share that. For those of you who I would encourage people to go back and watch the tape of the last meeting where we discussed. The point. And when we took the vote, I think the council, we asked very good questions and this project evolved. It was not the same, but we approved is not what was initially brought to us. There were what I'm going to call concessions and changes made in response to community members comments as well as staff and council members. So the project did evolve and furthermore the project will continue to evolve. There is much work to be done. So I would encourage anyone with any interest in this project to stay involved in the process. There will be many more meetings to come at the planning board level primarily, is my understanding. And so. So please do not think that we're done. And I I'm confident from the comments made by Mr. Joe Ernst that he will continue to work with the community. So please stay involved. Express your concerns and comments as this project moves forward so that we end up with a project that best meets the needs of Alameda . Thank you. And with that all those in favor. I motion passes unanimously. Six, eh? Oh, that's. Sorry. That's the one that was deferred. And until July 21st, that's the Del Monte Affordable Housing six. B Adoption of Resolutions of putting La Contini as a member of the Public Utilities Board. Daniel Davenport as a member of the Social Service Human Relations Board. And Mark Sorenson as a member of the Social Service Team Early. Jian. Thank you. Sorry about that. Do we have a motion?

AN ORDINANCE relating to housing and building maintenance, amending Seattle Municipal Code Sections 22.202.080, 22.206.020, 22.206.040, 22.206.050, 22.206.080, 22.206.090, 22.206.110, 22.206.130, 22.206.140, 22.206.160, 22.206.170, 22.214.050, and 22.214.086; and amending Ordinance 124011.

SeattleCityCouncil_07102017_CB 118974

The report of the Planning and Zoning Committee Agenda Item six Council Bill 118 974 Relating to housing and building maintenance. Amending limits for code sections 22.220 2.0 8020 2.206.0 20.0 40.0 50.0 80.0. 90.1 ten 131 4161 7022 point 14.0 50 end point zero 86 antimony Ortiz 1240 11. The committee recommends the bill passed as amended. Councilmember Johnson, thank you. This is the rental registration and inspection ordinance and probably the reason why everybody else is still here with us this afternoon. I'm really proud of the progress we've made so far on improvements to the rental registration and inspection ordinance. The bill, as voted out of committee, made five changes. One of those changes was technical in nature, but the other four made some pretty significant differences. And I'd like to thank Councilmember Herbold for bringing those amendments forward. They incorporate references to requirements related to lead paint modify. The percentage of units selected for inspection requires inspection reports from private inspectors and amends requirements related to lead paint, carbon monoxide alarms, minimum fire and safety requirements, improving security standards and other technical corrections. We had asked for a little bit of additional time between the vote committee and the full council vote in order to better identify a range of issues within the checklist to better classify failures. One of those failures that we hear a lot from the private sector landlords are that tenants disable their own smoke detectors. It's one of the most common, if not the most common failure that we get in our rental registries and inspection ordinance. And obviously a very different type of failure than the kinds of failures that we heard during public comment, like very significant mold issues or other safety issues. So we were intending to try to identify a set of ways to respond to that checklist. We just didn't quite run run into enough time to be able to do that. So we did set up a pathway that allows the department through director's role to continue to work with community partners and landlords and others to identify a lot of issues identified by Washington can Columbia Legal Services and other folks during the public comment . So I believe this is a really good step forward and continues to provide important protections for the 50% plus of our city who rent for their housing and really look forward to seeing what the outcomes of that additional work by the department looks like and commit to our friends who are still here that we're going to continue to do work in this fall's budget in order to make sure that we're adequately funding the department to continue to do their work. Thank you. Thank you, Captain Johnson. I'm sure Councilmember Herbold has something similar. To Councilmember Herbold. Thank you. You're good. Now. A couple of minutes. Oh, yeah, a minute. 30 seconds. I just want to thank the community partners as well as landlords for sharing their concerns with my office and thank Councilmembers Johnson O'Brien for supporting the amendments that I move forward during committee. In particular, the creating criteria for requiring additional units for inspection, I thought was very important. DCI had the the administrative discretion to to do that and has had it for a number of years. But we keep hearing of buildings that fail their REO inspection, but that aren't getting the additional inspections of units prior to a decision being made of whether or not these buildings are actually passing, but they're failing individual inspections without having a trigger for inspecting the whole building. So this is really, I think, important in identifying not just the need to correct violations within individual buildings, but to make sure that that's not indicative of other problems in the building. In addition, the reduction of the amount of notice to property owners of units selected for inspection I think addresses another sort of problem that has been identified with this program since its inception, which is there's among some landlords, certainly not all. There is some gaming of the system when landlords know which units are going to be inspected and they have a lot of notice, they are able to go in, fix those those problems quickly so that there's no indication to the to the department that there may be a problem in the in the building. And then lastly, the request that inspectors leave information in the unit after completing an investigation I think is really important to increasing tenant knowledge. In a building of the conditions and in ways to address those conditions in the future. And then finally, there's a signal of this council's interest in the future to address the program fees in such a way that we can evaluate and address any imbalances in the fee structure for small landlords while continuing to set the fees to cover the cost of administering the program. Thank you. Catherine Herbert. Any further comments? Thank you very much. Please call the roll on the passage of the bill. Burgess. Gonzalez Herbal. Hi. Johnson. Suarez. O'Brien. Swan. I beg your president. Herald. Hi. Nine in favor and unopposed. The bill passed and chair of Senate. Please read Agenda number seven. You can read the short title, please.

Recommendation to Accept Report on Offer to Transfer a Portion of the Oakland Inner Harbor Tidal Canal From the Army Corp of Engineers to the City of Alameda at No Cost and Subsequent Disposition of Property. (City Attorney 7120)

AlamedaCC_04072015_2015-1451

Madam Mayor and Council, this particular item is coming to you primarily from my office, Andre Pennock as an assistant city attorney in my office, and Jillian Blanchard of Rutter Law Group, who is an Alameda attorney, have been working very hard with the Army Corps of Engineers and other potential regional partners. This is another sticky wicket that's been around for a very long time that has just hard to get our arms around and try to solve some problems with. It's not the big ticket numbers that you've just been hearing about, but it has a lot of implications and frankly, has a lot of impact for quite a number of Alameda. And so I'm going to turn it over and let Andre go and Jillian walk you through it. Thank you. Thank you. City Attorney Kern. Good evening, Madam Mayor. Vice Mayor matter. Members of the City Council and members of the public. My name is Enrico Pinnick. I'm the assistant city attorney and I have with me Ms.. Julian Blanchard, outside counsel from the Ryder Law Group. We're here to provide you with an update on the potential transfer of a portion of the Oakland Inner Harbor Tunnel Canal from the US Army Corps of Engineers to the city of Alameda. It's not quite the OPEB discussion you've just had, but as Mr. Kernen has just mentioned, it is an important matter to many citizens here in the city of Alameda. I will provide you with a brief overview and history of the title canal. Discuss the existing conditions along the canal and highlight some of the issues related to the proposed transfer. I wouldn't turn it over to Miss Blanchard, who would discuss the possible transfer options and the consequences of no action. I would then conclude the presentation with a brief discussion of next steps. The Army Corps created the title canal in 1882 by dredging the Oakland estuary to San Leandro Bay. The total canal is 85 acres in total area, approximately 400 feet wide and 1.8 miles long. So it's approximately 1800 feet northwest of the Park Street Bridge and goes down to the entrance of the San Leandro Bay. As a result of accretion, which is the gradual accumulation of soil along the banks of the last century. Taro Kono now includes uplands areas. Note the area in red and blue on the current slide. That's the primary area that we're going to be talking about tonight. But there are other areas. The red line is known as the bulkhead line. Or the outer boundary of the original title canal. The blue line is called the pier hit line, as it generally follows the outer boundary of the existing piers. The area between the bulkhead and the pier line is the shoreline area is approximately 35 feet wide on average and currently contains private structures, docks and in some cases portions of houses. Part of the shoreline area also supports industrial uses. And as you can see from the map, from the slide, there are a lot of structures in between those two red and blue lines. There are approximately 90 residential properties and 14 commercial properties which are adjacent to the shoreline area. Portions of the shoreline area are dry, while other portions are partially or fully submerged like the rest of the total canal. The shoreline area is owned by the Army Corps. The history of the negotiations in 1990, the Water Resource Development Act, or Water authorized the Army Corps to transfer the Alameda side of the total canal to Alameda at no cost. Oakland was offered the same deal for the Oakland side of the Tidal Canal. The water only allows transfer at no cost to a public entity. The Army Corps has repeatedly stated that it wants to transfer the entirety of the canal as a package and has no interest in transferring to multiple private owners. In 2004, the Army Corps instituted a permitting moratorium for new construction, maintenance and repair. The moratorium remains in effect indefinitely. As a result, the city is unable to enforce its zoning and building code requirements. From about 2005 to 2012. Citizens and realtors in Alameda have expressed concern to the city regarding the moratorium and have requested that the city take action. The property owners along Burnside and Marina Avenue have formed a homeowners association called the Waterfront Homeowners Association, or Wahaha, to deal with this specific issue. Although the Army Corps has been authorized to dispose of this property since 1990, interest on both sides to pursue this transaction as waxed and waned over the last 20 years without much more progress. Then in 2013, the East Bay Regional Parks sent a letter of intent to the Army Corps expressing interest in taking the Oakland side of the tidal canal. Once upon him on September 2nd, 2014 and closed session, the City Council authorized the city attorney to send a letter to the Army Corps expressing the city's interest and also negotiating a possible transfer. With this renewed expression of interest, the city attorney asked Miss Blanchard. To continue to meet with the Army Corps and its representatives. And in addition with the representative of the homeowner's association. About the next steps to transfer the Alameda side of the tidal canal to the city. On February 3rd in closed session, the city attorney updated you in closed session on the status of the discussions. The City Council at that time directed city staff to present this item at an open meeting so as to inform the public and to allow the opportunity for public input. Well, there's a saying that if it were easy, somebody would have done it already. And true words were never spoken when it comes to this proposed transaction. It is not going to be easy. It is going to take a lot of support from all concerned to move this transaction forward. Current situation creates problems that affect the individual property owners. Industrial users and businesses along the tidal canal. Realtors in the area as well as the city as a whole. The per minute moratorium prevents any new construction, maintenance or repair of existing structures unless there's an emergency. Thus, the city is unable to properly enforce its zoning and building code requirements within the total canal area because the adjacent property owners have no authority to fix their dogs and other dilapidated structures. Moreover. There is no mechanism to clear title. Many of the adjacent residents and property owners have used the shoreline area as if it were their own. However, they pay no property taxes because the property is actually owned by the federal government. In many cases they pay no possess re interest tax because they do not have current leases with the Army Corps. In 1913. Taking a step back as to how we got to the situation, the assistant secretary of war authorized a license to construct nine permanent structures along the tidal canal for maritime use. Adjacent property owners took advantage of this license and started building structures between those red lines and those blue line. What did you see? That was Mr.. Billy. I'm sorry, ma'am. It's 1913. Going way back. One more. One until. Because it's the Secretary of war. And we never call them that anymore. However, the. After setting up this license regime, the Army Corps has changed his position several times on how it chooses to regulate the tidal canal. The Army Corps then imposed the moratorium in 2004. And now here we are, where structures were lawfully put in this shoreline area. But now the adjacent residents are prohibited from doing anything with them. The resident, the residential owners, but the residential owners, when it comes time to sell their property, there is no way to clear title for an area that they have improved in use but do not own. Is not because the adjacent property owners are unwilling to legitimize their use is because they're unable to do so given the status quo. As a result of the current situation. Property tax revenues. Building permit fees. Code enforcement fines that otherwise would be imposed if this were property anywhere else in the city go uncollected and the blighting condition continues. Although it's taken us a long time to get to this point, the discussions have only recently started in earnest. And there is still a lot of due diligence that staff has to do before we be prepared to come before you with a recommendation. In a moment, Julian will outline the possible transfer scenarios that Steph has considered thus far. However, any discussion has to consider some basic considerations, and this proposed transaction immediately raises three issues. Worse, the city cannot provide a gift to public funds. This issue is not related to the initial transfer between the Army Corps and the city, as that transfer will be at no additional cost apart from the recorder and escrow fees. This issue relates to any subsequent transfers of the property from the city to third parties, like the adjacent registered residential owners and commercial property owners. Under California law, a public agency cannot authorize a gift of money or value to a private individual. However, public funds may be used for a public benefit. Even if it results in an incidental benefit to an individual. Thus, at a minimum, the subsequent purchasers of the property must pay the transaction cost and the transfer must result in a public benefit. The proposed transaction will not move forward until we are certain that it can be structured in such a way as to avoid any gift to public funds. Secondly, the city cannot take unnecessary environmental ownership liabilities. There is contamination in the northwest. There's contamination northwest of the fruit belt, the Fruitvale Bridge. We know that from studies, contaminants such as petroleum and toxic heavy metals were found in soil samples from multiple locations along the commercial and industrial shoreline in higher concentrations than screening levels for industrial land use. The City Attorney's office, outside counsel and staff will be looking at ways to minimize the city's exposure to these liabilities through waivers, indemnification, pollution, liability insurance and discussions with the appropriate environmental regulators up front. Thirdly, there's the issue. There's the public trust question. The Army Corps has asserted that the tidal canal is not and has never been in the public trust. This argument has a certain logic because the Army Corps dredged this canal from what had been dry land and it remained in federal ownership ever since. However, the city needs to do due diligence. We will also research any potential restrictions on subsequent transfers associated with this issue. That's a brief overview of where we are today. I now turn it over the presentation over to Ms.. Blanchard to discuss the possible transfer options. Thank you, Mr. Penick, for that thorough presentation of the background and the history of the title canal. Good evening, Mayor Spencer, Vice Mayor, Motor City Council members and members of the public. My name is Jillian Blanchard. I am outside counsel, as Mr. Penick mentioned, with the Retter Law Group located here in Alameda. And I assist the city attorney's office on environmental and land use matters. And I have been tasked with the interesting assignment of trying to untie the Gordian knot that is, you know, Oakland, Inner Harbor, Tidal Canal. So our goal tonight is really to update council as well as the public on where we are at this point in our concept for a transfer. So this is our magic overview side of the current transfer concept. And as a backdrop, it's important to remember Mr. Penick mentioned this the fact that the Corps has repeatedly stated it will not transfer portions of the canal. Its goal is to transfer the entire title canal in one transaction. And so given the various issues at play and in consideration of the slightly differing set of concerns associated with different areas along the canal, at this point, we have proposed to split the parcels into three and still be three parcels that would all be transferred simultaneously from the core, but we would be disposed of in slightly different ways based on the needs of the public and relative constraints. So just as an overview, the three parcels are the orange, the residential parcel, and that includes a sliver of upland but mostly submerged land between, as Mr. Penick mentioned, the bulkhead line and we call the bulkhead line and the pier headline, which is the outer boundary essentially of the existing pier structures. This parcel we would propose at this point to transfer from the core and then immediately to the city and then immediately transfer from the city to the individual property owners along the canal of which there are approximately 90. And we'll get into additional details as we go through it. So it's late, so we'll try and keep it succinct. The second parcel is the commercial parcel that's in green, and again, it's just a sliver. It's approximately 35 feet wide on average. And it's between it's from Fruitvale Bridge just to in case that isn't clear, up to the northwest boundary of the tidal canal. And it would go from the bulkhead line to the pier headline. We would propose at this point to have this parcel transferred from the core to the city and then have the city hold the parcel pending further disposition. Again, we are looking at a variety of options as to what that would look like. But this is a an update on where we are in the process. The third parcel is the remaining piece, the open water parcel, and that's from the pier head line to what we call the 50 yard line set the center line of the canal. At this point, we're looking into options to transfer this parcel from the core, either directly to East Bay Regional Park District or to the city. And that will depend on upon further information that gets uncovered during the due diligence process. Okay. So here is just an overview side of the residential side where there are approximately 90 properties. The red line, of course, is the bulk headline. The blue line is the pure headline. It's approximately 35 feet on average. And as you can see, it includes mostly submerged lands, underlying existing docks. However, there are some there is some uplift. So let's get into the details here of where we are at this point. The residential parcel in our proposed transfer, as I mentioned, it would involve a simultaneous transfer from the core to the city and then to the individual property owners. In order to effect that type of a double simultaneous transfer. We would need to complete legal descriptions and all survey work on the 90 parcels in advance of any transfer from the core to the city. So effectively the proposal would be to have the city on the chain of title for this parcel for a conceptual nanosecond, effectively. And we've been working with representatives from the homeowners association. And we will continue need to continue working with all of the property owners within the residential parcel to confirm 100% participation in this deal. Staff would not come forward to the city and recommend moving forward with the transaction unless and until we had the assurances of all the residential parcels that they would be transferred. At this point, it is our understanding that there is a high level of interest among the property owners to participate in rectifying this ongoing issue. The question has been raised with respect to assessments and whether or not this transfer would trigger any tax reassessments under Proposition 13. I am not a tax attorney, nor do I pretend to be one, but I presume. And so just to be very clear, we are not providing any legal advice to the public on this issue. However, based on preliminary research and discussions, we anticipate that any reassessment would relate specifically to the sliver. At issue is this 35 or on average a foot wide piece and therefore would be minimal. Of course, we would encourage buyers, prospective buyers, to associated with the residential parcel, to do their own research, to figure out their own rights , their own tax liabilities, etc.. Mr. Penick brought up a very, very important point, which is served essentially as our guidepost in this transaction, which is the very clear fact that the city cannot provide a gift to public funds in any way, shape or form. So the property owners have been made aware of this fact and they understand their need to pay their fair share in order to buy into this program to obtain their sliver, if you will. We have completed only back of the envelope calculations at this point to figure out what those costs look like associated with the transaction. But at this point, we anticipate that the property owners will need to pay between 5 to $10000 to be able to buy into the program, if you will. And in addition to that, they would need to accept all future maintenance and any obligations related to ownership. So just to be very clear, the transaction cannot take place if there is any sort of gift of public funds on the part of the city. So and there is also the question associated with that of what is the public benefit? And we want to make clear that at this point, the city is unable to enforce its building code requirements, its existing code requirements on that adjacent sliver along the canal. So completing this transfer and the reason that is, as Mr. Penick identified, is because of the cause permitting moratorium. Property owners simply can't get the authority necessary to do necessary upgrades to docks and existing structures. So completing the transfer would result in the court lifting the permitting moratorium and then would clear any current and existing cloud on title and allow the city then to enforce its necessary building code standards, including any necessary safety setbacks from the water and would certainly prevent any future unauthorized construction. Here's an overview of the commercial side. Again, we're talking about the red lines and the blue lines, the bulk headline, the big headline on average, a 35 foot sliver. There are approximately 14 properties and they include marinas, industrial uses, redevelopment sites, streets, etc.. An overview of what we're looking at at this point for the concept of transfer. Again, it's a package deal from the core. So if you want to take the residential piece, you need to take the commercial piece, kind of figure out what that disposition looks like. As indicated previously, the court has refused to transfer it in pieces. So and as you could tell, as many of you are aware, there's been an existing industrial uses, I think back to World War Two or even before. So as you might imagine, and as Mr. Penick referenced, there are as a result of those industrial uses, there is contaminated sediment and soil within the commercial area. The Corps as part of their transfer process, has to complete a number of environmental reports in order to get to what's called a finding of suitability of transfer. And as part of that, they've completed a phase one and a Phase two environmental site assessments. And without going into too many details at this point, it's it's fair to say that the shoreline soil in the commercial piece is markedly more contaminated than the residential side. And they have identified soil at multiple locations on the residue on the commercial piece contaminated with petroleum toxic heavy metals in excess. As Mr. Penick mentioned, of regulatory benchmarks. So the reports that the Corps has provided at this point indicate that there is no imminent threat to human health or the environment. Owever, if there were any proposals to excavate through redevelopment, they would need to be remediated to acceptable screening levels. The Regional Board has been involved in the preparation of the Phase one and the Phase two reports and is currently reviewing the most updated version of the Phase two report. And the city myself in particular has been actively engaged with the Regional Board who by the way, has the exclusive jurisdiction with respect to contaminated sediment on the canal. So we've been actively engaged with them not only to determine the levels of contamination, the source of the contamination, which clearly is not from the city, and most importantly , methods of limiting the city's liability if they were to be entering into the chain of title. Because another clear guidepost is that the city cannot accept any potential contamination liability associated with this transfer. It's complicated, as Mr. Phenix said. If it was easy, it would have been done already. So what we're doing now and will continue to do is research these avenues for limiting liability, which could include and likely would include negotiating leases with the existing commercial operators, which would include detailed indemnities, hold harmless agreements, very specific environmental restrictions with respect to excavation, etc., possible transfers to the developers directly, which is similar to what we're proposing on the residential parcel piece. And then prospective purchaser agreements with the Regional Board potentially or any other regulatory agency as necessary to limit the city's liability with respect to environmental cleanup. Again, we're in process of researching these avenues. So we would staff would come back to council once we've completed further due diligence with a much more specific path, an avenue, an approach to limiting the city's liability. At this point, we're just providing an update as to where we are. The public benefit again here would be code enforcement, which at this point the city is unable to enforce along that sliver to the extent it's applicable. In addition, we would note that there's potential lease revenue from the leases that we mentioned associated with commercial operators in the area. Moving right along. We have the open water parcel, which is the remaining open water piece from the pier head line out to the 50 yard line, as we call it. At this point, it's still open and we're in the process of due diligence. But at this point, what we'd be proposing is to have this parcel transfer directly from the core to East Bay Regional Park District. They have stated their clear intent and interest in taking the Oakland side for purposes of creating the Bay Trail. And so it would be a natural extension to have East Bay Regional Park District take the rest of that open water piece. That said, of course, we need to complete additional due diligence and make sure and in particular the public trust issues to the extent there are any and make sure and we confirm the most prudent and beneficial course. It could be that it makes more sense for the city to take that piece and we will come back to council with progress on our discussions with East Bay Regional Park District as well as our further research on the issue. So as we've said a couple of times now, it's not easy. It's not clear. It's it's complicated. It's not a simple transaction. There are many constraints. There's a variety of moving parts that all need to hang together to complete this process. And many have immediately dismissed this as out of hand is saying it's too difficult. It's too complicated. And as a result, the properties along the canal have suffered. There is now blight along the canal. There are dilapidated docks and adjacent property owners really have no legal path to being able to improve their property. Unfortunately, the problem won't go away. It continues to rear its ugly head and it gets uglier with the more and more dilapidated dock situation. So if we cannot reach a resolution at this point or at some point property owners and realtors, I certainly would continue to lobby the city on this issue. We anticipate the Corps would continue its permitting moratorium, which would, of course, prevent the city from being able to prevent to enforce its building codes, to allow necessary upgrades to improve the waterfront as a whole. Docks and other structures may fall continue to fall into disrepair, and there's potentially continued unauthorized construction. So I guess. It's taken. I guess the last thing I would just impart to the public and and the council is that there's more work to do. It's taken many months to get to this point, just to have our concept of what the transfer strategy looks like. And we would propose to come back to city council once we have a lot more information, have completed our due diligence and really reach out more directly and effectively to the property owners, including the commercial operators, with a more detailed plan and a potential path to creating what could be a legacy along the waterfront and resolving the issue for generations to come. So with that, I would turn it over to back to Mr. Penick for details on next steps of long term and short term. Thank you for your time. But just before he goes. Well, Miss Blanchard, I think we have a question for you. Vice Mayor, he's going to ask a question real quick. In this transfer scenario, who is responsible for dredging? It's an excellent question and it depend. The answer depends on where you're talking about with respect to the navigation navigational channel, the federal navigational channel, which is effectively the open water piece. The Corps of Engineers would maintain its obligation of navigational servitude to dredge that channel for maintenance purposes. The good news is that it was created to be a tidal canal and it works. So there's effectively a lot of scour along that canal. And to our knowledge, to my knowledge, the Corps has not had to do very much if any maintenance dredging the side pieces would be any maintenance. Dredging attached to the residential side would be transferred to the individual property owners. But that's a really basic threshold question. And by the way, I just want to compliment you, Ms.. Blanchard and Mr. Pennetta on it. I think it's a fascinating report. I know the property owners would probably use a different word than fascinating, but you could take material that some might consider dry. Well, I know we're talking about water, but and make it and really make it fascinating. So thank you for that. When I was reading the report, I saw that in 1882, maybe this was dredged to create a tidal canal. Why? Why do you need a title? I ask the same question. Okay. If it was some sort of disease, mosquito borne disease that was festering in Lake Merritt, as I understand it. And so by scouring the tidal canal, it created the tidal action that affected Lake Merritt as well and alleviated the problem. Is Oakland owes anything for that. Member de Saag Thank you. Just a quick question on the transfer of the ball transferring, triggering the Prop 13 reassessment, will we have language that clearly says that this is a possibility and whatever agreement we strike with whomever, as we at the end of the day know if people are going to shell out 5 to $10000. We also don't want them to say, but I didn't I didn't realize that, you know, so this is a risk. And and if everyone is willing to bear that and recognize that on eyes wide open basis, and that's important to specify. Absolutely, I would agree. Councilmember de and we intend to have a number of disclosures attached to whatever transfer documents we provide to the property owners, and we'll engage in additional conversations with the assessor on that issue. Member. Brody. Quick question. Thank you also for the very detailed presentation, this Prop 13 thing. That's the thing that concerns me, too. So are we looking at. The sliver would be its own parcel. Yes. Yes, yes, yes. That's what the legal description would be for each of these property owners was would be a sliver. The sliver. And that's what they would be effectively purchasing for purposes of a Prop 13 reassessment. But again, we're not making we're not providing legal advice here. That is our current estimate of for. Which they end up with the two parcels be combined, or would they remain separate parcels? And if they're separate parcels, you know, we have various parcel taxes. I think that that's an excellent question. And I think that requires further research to determine what each individual property owner might do. And maybe it's a question for the property owners as well as in terms of what their next steps might be. Okay. Thank you. Member de SAC. Yes, thank you. Just a follow up question, and I want to be clear about the transfer of the property. So there are three elements to the transfer the residential, the commercial and the in the open water. Aren't those focusing on any on either of them? Well, let's focus on the residential when when and if the Army Corps of Engineers transfers the residential to us. Are we then automatically transferring it through the to the residence, though, so that we're not. We might get title to the property on a moment from the Army Corps of Engineers. Then suddenly we own it. That that's not going to happen, right? Right. That is part of our that is a huge part of our due diligence process is absolutely ensuring that everything is in place and teed up such that the transfer would go immediately from the core to the city to the property owners. The way worda is drafted, it's it's required to go effectively through the city. And so that's why the city is is in the process in the center of this process. But yes, absolutely. Councilmember Desai That would be a huge part of making sure everything is teed up before we take anything for. Thank you. Mayor Brody. Is there going to be a transfer tax on that for people or. A transfer taxes for tech? I wouldn't pretend to answer that question for I'm not I'm not certain, but we could certainly research that piece for you. And in regards to the open water parcel, it sounds like it may or may not go to East Bay Regional Park District and if the city keeps it, then my concerns would go to. I'd want to know the liabilities dredging, maintenance, environmental cleanup, maintenance of Fruitvale Railroad Bridge and any any potential loss that you would anticipate. Right. Thank you. Mayor Spencer. I think that's an important point. And at this point, we are proposing to have it go directly to East Bay Regional Park District. But to the extent that with respect to public trust issues, there is a need for the city to take it. We would do extensive research on that, on the issues of potential liability. I would add, though, that that with respect to any maintenance dredging, that certainly would stay with the Corps. And the other piece that we have at this point negotiated with the Corps is removing the Fruitvale Rail Bridge from the question of this transaction. So the city would not be taking the Fruitvale Rail Bridge. As we understand, that's raised concern and questions in the past. All right. I just want to reinforce, because I know there was some questions in some of the blogs and things. The idea is in the open water, the corps would retain dredging responsibility, not the city. Whether the city owned it or the East Bay Park District owned it. The Corps would retain dredging, and I would I would second the city attorney's sentiment, which is that the Corps is actually unable to transfer that dredging responsibility. They maintain the obligations of navigational servitude, so they cannot transfer that obligation. Thank you for clarifying that. Any other council comments at this point? Did you want to finish up this report? And we have 18 speakers, by the way. Thank you, Madam Mayor. In. Given the lateness of the hour, we're just going to conclude with our next steps, which is basically to move forward with the direction that the council has already given us in closed session, and that is to continue to negotiate with the Army Corps of Engineers regarding the possible transfer to reach out to our partners in the East Bay Regional Parks with regard to those transactions, as we've just previously discussed. We are also going to begin actively engaging the residents and the commercial property owners with regards to their interest in the subsequent transfer process. And of course, we will continue to update both the council and the public periodically on the citizen negotiations. So with that, I will conclude the presentation and we stand ready to answer your questions to the best of our ability, if and when you have them. At this point, I plan to call speakers. Thank you. Katie Braun, it appears you. You're going to see to your time or did you want to speak? I'm going to cede my time to Seth, who's the chairman of Wawa. And Seth, did you want to speak at the end where your slippers or did you. All right, Kurt Braun. Uh, Madam Mayor. Members. Managers. Staff. My name's Kurt Brown. I've been a resident of Alameda, actually. Native, uh, or close to 55 years now. And homeowner at three, three, six, five, four inside. And member of the Waterfront Homeowners Association. Katie and I moved to our present home at three, three, 654 inside in 1986. And we've seen numerous mayors and council members and managers come and go trying to tackle this issue. I've been attending council meetings and writing letters regarding this issue for almost 30 years now. And we'd like to offer some continuity to the current council and staff. Getting permits to repair decks, docks and other structures in our back yards from all the various agencies has always been a nightmare. And as the report said that since 2000, the Army has stopped issuing permits altogether. The city acknowledged the situation back in 1989 in a letter to waterfront homeowners. I've got some of this stuff here and and began a subdivision project with Kirkland engineering surveying the estuary and our backyards. That's. Mr. Kirkland's done a lot of work and I would say that survey, if you guys could dig it up, has a lot of the what we're going to need in the future to do the subdivision . It's been the work's been a lot of it, in fact, I'd say mostly done already. The 26 years later, we're still discussing this transfer of land the army and the city don't want and the homeowners need title to in order to repair, get repair permits and clear title to their product and to sell their properties. In 1993, Mayor Withrow at a council meeting suggested the city could take title and then immediately convey parcels the adjacent land. I see this has been going on a long time. Still no action. 96 we got the Water Resources Development Act. Amended, allowing direct transfer from the army to the homeowners. That was a little bit. I have to take a little bit issue there. So paragraph three of that does allow direct. Transfer, but the Army doesn't want to do that. So we still don't have any action despite direct, quick claims to adjacent homeowners in the past. In fact, the back of our house was done in a quick clean but claim that they had no line line drawn around it there. So that was back in 1941. So it has happened in the past. But they don't they don't want to do it anymore. So we're back to finishing the Kirkland survey, the city taking title and transferring to the homeowners. So I urge you to finally move ahead with the transfer. And you're welcome to contact me for further information. I've got an extensive file on this subject, so hopefully I don't have to be here in another 30 years dealing with this. Thank you. Thank you. And next is Ron Valentine. So you're planning to cede your time to Seth also. Okay. Then I'm going to move on to end of our 11. And then it'll be Michael. Michael Gorman and then Michael Fisher. Well, I lost my stuff, so hopefully I can remember. Good evening, Mayor Spencer. Council staff. My name is. And Balaban. I'm a resident and also a local realtor here in Alameda. And first, I. Also would like to thank. The council for that great presentation. This is not an easy thing to grasp. I know having sat through many presentations on this subject over over the last. Ten years or so, I suppose. So I'm here just to also encourage staff and council to really, you know, continue moving forward on this. This is something that is very important for our community. As a realtor, I see it impacting people as they are trying to sell their properties or those who are trying to buy properties. When you have any kind of clout on title, it makes things quite difficult. And to be able to declare it, to be able to clear that it would be very beneficial also for existing homeowners has been said to not be able to repair structures that are on your property is troublesome not only in the fact that you clearly these are these are particularly in water areas. Safety factors are huge. You want to make sure that people using these structures are safe. And then also on a personal level as to the environment, what happens to these structures when they finally do get to the point that they break away or whatnot or create problems within our waterways and and I'm sure our wildlife as well . So all of those things are quite important. I think. Most of the items are really. Well stated within the presentation. As far as you know, who takes on the. Cost of this. The homeowners have been notified. People are working. You certainly have many folks that want to see this happen. So I'm. Really just here to support and to encourage. The maybe. Final resolution of this, which would be really wonderful as it has been going on for some time. So thank you for your time and hopefully we'll get this done. And next up is former council member Michael Gorman. Good evening, Madam Mayor. Council members. I was privileged to sit up in that seat for several years back in the eighties. And I guess the first I'd like to say to you all is thank you very much for all you do for this city. I know what those 2:00 in the morning meetings were like over and over and over, and all the preparation is to go into it. We've been working on this for a long time. I'm a third generation resident and our family's been in the property on Fern side since 1950. I can allow your fears about the dredging, because since 1950 there's been no need to dredge. The water moves through there at such a rate that it just flushes it. And the mosquito deal as the original reason is a nice way to put it. I think it was really there was no sewage treatment back in the late 1800s and early 1900s. It all went into the estuary and there was nothing to flush that out. So the tidal canal was very effective around the time I was on the council in the eighties. Curt mentioned there was a survey done by Kirkland and this is a reduced copy of not only the survey, but a tentative map. The city filed a tentative map. It's in the file. Not sure where that office is right now, but I went and got these copies from it several years ago. The tentative map was never acted upon. So as he said, a lot of work had already been done on this. Even back in the eighties. Not too much happened over time. And then ten years ago in I think it was oh five, the Corps seemed to have a spurt of energy to do something about this. Hired Barbara Price at a meeting at Edison School with all of us homeowners. And we're going to transfer this property. That was February well, five. Here we are in 2015. And we the homeowners association and all of our. Neighbors along the street there really want to see this happen. So thank you for giving your staff direction to this point in time. And I hope they can keep keep it moving and we can get this resolved once and for all. Thank you and thank you for your service. Michael Fisher. And then Donna Fisher and then Troy Davis. Michael Fisher. Donna Fisher. Troy Davis. Hey. And Donna Rock that. Bauman. And Kevin Peterson. Good evening, Madam Mayor and council members. My name is Don Uruk. My husband Jim and I are waterfront homeowners who reside at 33274 inside Boulevard. And we are members of the Waterfront Homeowners Association. We moved to Alameda ten years ago, which means I guess we're newbies. Here or everybody else. And we moved. Here mainly because of the attraction of living on the water and living on an island. When we purchased our property, it was our understanding that the Army Corps of Engineers moratorium for new construction and maintenance or repair of our docks would be resolved shortly. I think our real estate. Agent told us within the next year. Now we're ten years from there and we're still unable to maintain our docks. With every big storm we see parts of dark structures around. Us falling. Into the estuary. We'll see a piling, you know, going by and we'll kind of look down there to see who. Lost part of the dock. The continuance of this moratorium when we're at a point where it can be stopped is counterintuitive. And the decision to support the transfer, in my opinion, as a no brainer. With the residential parcel, there's no cost to the city. All the transfer costs are going to be borne by the homeowners. The transfer promotes investment in the maintenance of our properties. The transfer protects the sensitive estuary environment. These are certainly public benefits. We're excited that this issue at long last has come before the city council and urge you to vote for the transfer of the residential parcel to the city from. The Corps and from the city to the waterfront. Homeowners. Thank you. You. Pop plowman. Left. And Kevin Peterson. And Ed Payne. Had asked when she left to give her time to Seth also. Better Mayor Council. Yeah. Mm hmm. And staff, I want to thank you for your time here and listening to this situation. And Kevin Peterson, a little bit. Three, 3494 Insight. My wife and I bought the home almost two decades ago. And as they expressed some of the situation about the realtor, I mean, that hits home with us because our home built in 1920 , technically about a third or a quarter that is over that and is technically in the Army Corps of Engineers land. So trying to represent a property like that or US future, I mean, this is kind of a hang up for us. Our backyard is literally part of this Army Corps. I mean, if you could put yourself in our situation and somebody telling you you can't do anything to your backyard for 15 years or longer that this moratoriums been on, it's been difficult. So at these docks we've been breaking down, a number of these older ones were made of creosote or. Other more harmful ingredients to being part of the environment. This last December, literally three docks within view of my home took it because they had fallen into disrepair and weren't or unable to do any upgrades in regards to this property. Um. Mr. Russo, I. Watched your presentation on the budget. I just want to make a comment that this is. No cost to the city. This is an opportunity to us, partner. With and share this to make this. A palatable. Resolution for both the city and the homeowners. That it allows us to invest in our property, allows us to do the proper upkeep to prevent any further damage to our environment. It's something that needs to happen. And we encourage you to accept this report and work through the details. I know there's some details to work through, but I don't think they're that complicated. And I think we're prepared to work with you to come to a good resolution. So I know it's late and I won't take up any more time, but I thank you for your time and encourage you to move forward. Thank you. Ed Payne. Then Susan Fitzgerald and then George Fitzgerald. Thank you for the opportunity to come and express my opinion on this on this matter. Good to see Vice Mayor Matarese again up there on the. As part of the council anyway. Yeah, I'm part of the Waterfront Homeowners Association. I'm actually the vice chairman. I've lived on Marina Drive for 39 years, and I got I didn't realize when I bought my home what I was getting myself into. I have to tell you, to be honest with you, I just bought. It because. I had a boat and I wanted some place to park it. Well, the very next year, I really. I was told, hey. You need a permit to build this dock. And then I started getting into all of the headaches, all of the red tape, the bureaucracy. And I've been fighting with that for a years. I've been dealing with that for years. And I have found that there's many, many other people have also dealt with those same problems. Over the last. 39 years. I've gotten to know them, and this has been the first time that this has offered me some glimmer of hope that that all of the problems they've talked about were displayed up here in the slides and possibly be resolved now. And it's exciting to me to know that that all the things we have been dealing with as homeowners now can possibly be addressed. We can. I have seen docks. My neighbor's dock just deteriorated to the point where the whole wharf fell in the water. The whole floating dock just deteriorated. But and I've seen people, you know, what's happened is they couldn't get permits and stuff. They so what did they do? They they're building them in the middle of the night or on the weekends. And so all kinds of legal, illegal structures here is an opportunity to do something that we all benefit from. The city benefits from it, the homeowners benefit from it. I believe that there's tax revenues can can be generated from this Corps of Engineers gets it gets us out of their hair, you know, so everybody benefits from this . I encourage you to move forward on this. This is something that has given me some sense of hope and to address the issues I've been dealing with for the last 39 years. So thank you. Susan Fitzgerald. George Fitzgerald of. That's all right. Winston. WESTERVELT And then Seth. 17. Winsome WESTERVELT. He's still here. W i n somi w e s trv vlt. All right. Looks like Seth is up. And I don't know if you're going to need all this time. One, two, three, or five, six, six people that have seated. So, I mean, including your own. And a mayor, vice mayor, council members and staff. Thank you so much for all of your time on this. I will not use all of the time ceded to me, but I think it's helpful to. Leave you with a couple of. Couple of thoughts on kind of. Who is this group has come in and spoken to. Unite. Who's this group that. That I'm representing here tonight? I'm the chair of the homeowner's association. And this is an organization that was started on a volunteer basis, unlike a lot of other homeowner's associations where you're just stuck as soon as you buy the property. This is actually a coming together of neighbors who actually all agreed on one really specific thing, which is that this situation needs to be resolved. But I think it's also really important for us to start out being really clear about something here. I think, you know, if you were to characterize us as a group, the first thing that you would want to say, we're incredibly grateful. I'm going to explain each one of these. We're also incredibly frustrated. But I start with the grateful because we know that we're in a special situation as well. We're asking for help. We are organized and we are a resource for the city to lean on to help make this go as smoothly as possible. And we're asking for speedy action as long as this is going on. It's time to bring it to a close. And we're actually at a point where that could really happen. And we're really heartened that this is being heard tonight, because, as Ed described, it feels like it's so close finally. I want to go back to each of these points very briefly on the grateful were incredibly grateful for all the work that the city has already done on this. The Corps is not here tonight because it's not really about the Corps, but they also have done a ton of work. But the city attorney's office especially has spent a lot of time unraveling the Gordian knot as well. And it makes all the difference. We have a really clear path to move forward on. We are admittedly frustrated, as you've heard from a lot of folks. This is just a really bizarre situation to be in, to have at one point been granted permission by the adjoining property owner, built structures, started using them, and then decades later, find ourselves in a position where we cannot maintain, cannot fix. And it's it's embarrassing, frankly. We recognize that a lot of people see us as they come across the high street and frail bridges, and we would like to take better care of our structures. We really care deeply about the estuary. Some of the people who came up to speak tonight have spent hundreds, maybe thousands of their own hours, both figuring this out and also figuring out ways to get funding to help remove sunken vessels and do other things to help protect the estuary. We think of us as the first line of defense really in a lot of ways. I want to emphasize again the gratefulness. We recognize that we're in a really lucky position. I think some people might throw stones at us as a group and say, you know what, a bunch of whiners, you know, here they are. They're so lucky to be on the water. We don't deny that. But we also paid for it. We bought them. And I think a lot of the concern that you heard about the property tax issue, we've spent time talking to the assessor's office. And what the assessor found back in the eighties when this was first considered, was that the value was already paid. The property owners actually thought they had use of this structure and paid full value. And now we're just trying to reconcile the legal property boundaries. But we are incredibly grateful. We recognize these are very special properties. We would like to maintain them so they they appear special to the outside world as well. We're frustrated because honestly, during this time, you know, people measure life by milestones. I have a son who wasn't born when this started and is now ten years old. And I'm not even the one who's who's endured the longest part of this. But when you think about it and this is sound a little bit ridiculous, but and maybe I'm playing the child card too much, but, you know, you think about it, that's ten years where I can't safely take him out onto that dock. Like the things fallen apart. And I just want to fix it. Not asking for something special. I just want to fix it. We've lost members during this time, frankly. I mean, it's very morbid, but like when ten years go by or 30 years go by, when an issue is at hand. People's lives go on. And so I know that it's easy to say, like, it was very complicated and maybe we don't tackle it, but, you know, it doesn't matter to us. That's why we're here tonight and we're asking for help. And I know that a lot of times the city is doing much bigger issues. But we're prepared to make it as painless a path as we possibly can. And that's why we're organized. So I ask that you lean on us for assistance during this process. And I ask that you move as quickly as you can. We are very close. The Corps has done what I believe is probably all the work that they're going to do on this. And at this point, they need a willing counterparty to bring this transaction to a close. And so the one thing I would ask is I know that oftentimes you want more time to study an issue, more time to ask the what ifs. But at some point for this issue that has been going on for 30 years, and so we're asking let's just get to a speedy resolution. We're not asking for it to be done the wrong way or sloppily. You know, anything worth doing should be done. Right. But it's time. So thank you very much. Thank you. And we have two more speakers, Adam Stone and then Paul Mabry. And here comes our closer. You want to speak? This is your last chance. Please turn your slip. Council. Mayor, thank you very much. My name is Paul Maybury and I'm probably the newest owner of the firm site Homeowner's Association. And I would like to add just a little twist to what Seth left you with, and that is I have a four month old, so I am in Seth's shoes ten years ago. And I really would like to have my both my sons I have a four year old and a four month old. I'd like to have both those boys grow up and fully enjoy the waterfront. I also in my day job, I'm a California licensed attorney and a professional and surveyor, and I am working on probably the largest redevelopment projects in the region on Treasure Island and Candlestick Point, Hunters Point Shipyard. And as you know, there's a lot of Navy owned properties there as well. So. Seth offered the homeowners association as as a resource you can lean on. And I would like to just kind of clarify that, that the homeowners association, by virtue of my particular skills, also has some very unique. Qualifications that have to do with this type of Navy transfer. The title issues, the land survey issues, writing legal descriptions, all of those things that will be the nitty gritty. We do have resources here that we would volunteer to provide to the city and help you out as much as we can. Thank you very much. Thank you. Council Commons member Ashcraft. Thank you, Mayor Spencer. And I want to thank all of the speakers, all the homeowners who spoke and property owners and the ones who just attended and the ones who couldn't stay this late. And I want to disclose at the outset that I outset that I did have a phone conversation this afternoon with Mr. Hamelin. And first of all, I don't think of you all as whiners at all. It's really rather horrifying to hear what you've gone through. It's it really is a catch 22. I do want to, you know, send a shout out to our city attorney's office because Janet Kern, her very capable staff, very capable outside counsel. Ms.. Blanchard, they tackled this. And I think we're going to be the counsel that's going to bring this to a resolution to I for one, I'm not speaking for my count, my colleagues, they'll speak for themselves. But I think we've had some really thorough presentations. I understand that there's still a few more details. This is no doubt complicated, but I don't think we need to study this to death. I think we need to move it forward and bring a resolution to you. So I really commend everybody who's working on this. And the other thing I would love to see are cohesive neighborhoods like yours. You make us a better city and you make it a very nice place to live in in your neighborhood because you were all and again, this wasn't mandated. You got yourselves together, which is just kind of a great example of volunteerism. You're volunteering. You all have your special skills. None of us has a lot of extra time, but you're willing to to step forward and help out your neighbors and yourselves. And so I, I think that we just want to see are the the attorneys and city staff who are working on this to continue to bring it back to us as soon as it's possibly ready. And and I do think this is the council that's going to put an end to the nightmare that you've endured. So hang in there just a little longer. Thank you, everybody. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'll try to be brief. First, I want to thank the city attorney for prioritizing this. It's complicated, but there's really no action item. But I would say the action item for us, at least speaking for myself, is let's get this done. The one just just three brief points. And I don't think any of the residents here are asking for anything special. They're just asking for the benefit of the bargain when when they purchase their homes and they're asking their government to work for them. And that's our responsibility. And I think we need to do it. All right. Any other member comments? Vice Mayor. Two questions. Oh, when is our next step? What's the next milestone that we're going to be made aware of and enter the community? And second, um, I'm glad this is an open session. I think it's very important. Because we're dealing with another agency that's tax supported that we make sure the public knows what's going on as well . And I'd also like to have them whatever follow up that you do is to consider either the pros and cons of the commercial portion of the transfer to go to the best for public the Tidelands Trust under the state and see if that option benefits the city or liability. All right. I just got a question and a question, Mr. Panic. I'd like you to ask. I think I heard either you or Ms.. Blanchard say that you can't move forward with this agreement until you have consensus of all of the property owners. And my question is, what if you have a holdout or a recalcitrant property owner, especially for the residential folks? What if you don't have 100% buy in? I think there's maybe some out of town owners that or others that just don't see the value of this I've heard. So how would you address that? Through the mayor again, Enrico Penick, assistant city attorney. If I may, I'd like to take councilmember as he asked Kraft's question first, because I think it's the easier of the two. The the current. Concept that we're working on here is if there had been any holdouts, the homeowners association would take title to that holdout property, and then it would be up to the homeowners association to work out any deals with the individual holdout members so the city staff would not be prepared to come to the council to recommend this transfer unless we had either 100% participation from the residents or assurances from the homeowners association that they would cover the cost of any holdout members . Again, that's conceptual. We will have to get those assurances from the association. But you've heard from their representative and you can see that there is some strong. Interest on the part of the homeowners association. So we're confident that those details can be worked out. Two Mayor, two vice mayor matter raises questions. The next milestones from the city's perspective would be to start reaching out to the East Bay Regional Parks, to talk to them with regards to their issues. Also to steward working in earnest to do that survey and mapping work. Although there may have been some work that has been done in the past, just taking a survey down the canal. There are a lot of structures that sit offset from the main houses. So the the idea would be to draw a line from the adjacent property all the way down to the waterfront. In some cases, that may or may not be able to be done. You may have to that line may have to shift because of existing, existing structures. So I think one of our major task would be to do some survey work, get some preliminary mapping work, and then take that back to the homeowners and to resolve any conflicts between adjacent property owners on exactly where those lines might be drawn. Once we have that and we have an agreement in concept from the Army Corps, I think we'd be in a position to be able to come back to you to report some real progress. Approximate time. I wish I could give you a timeframe on when that could be accomplished. I would venture a guess that. Sure a member matter. One piece that we're we're up against is, of course, we're one party. We have to have the cause engagement on a very real level. And while they've have done some work, there is more work that they do need to do. So we're we're working with them. And I think with city council strong support in favor of moving forward, I think that will motivate the Corps to take more active action. So we are reliant on them as well as responses from the Regional Board on their review of existing environmental reports. So we will again push those resource agencies. They have tight staffing constraints, but we will push them and with a more clear green light, we would begin pushing even harder to try and get more immediate responses. And then, as I understand it, in regards to East Bay Parks, that's another part of you don't have a. Middle for. That. You're absolutely right, Madam Mayor. We we we we have to. We have yet to reach out to the East Bay regional parks. So we have no idea where they currently stand on their negotiations with the Army Corps and how prepared they are to move forward and how quickly. So one of my concerns then is to make sure that there's not any liabilities that the city would hold. And as it's approaching 1030, we actually have three items that are still pending 60, 60 and nine A and I would need a motion and approval by four to proceed past the. To take up these. We have a motion to move. Okay. Any comment? All those in favor. Hi. A motion passed unanimously. Thank you. I think the city attorney want to weigh in on you. Yes. I was just going to suggest, Madam Mayor and council that it while it's true, we don't know exactly the timeline because we have other agencies. I think what we will do, though, is make a commitment to the council and to the folks who are here and listening, that we are going to continue to proceed with all deliberate speed. And we can make a promise to you that we can get some sort of report back to you. I would say three months. So the 1st of July. Is that adequate? Vice Mayor First of all, I thought I heard that you were looking for maybe I misunderstood a green light from the council or some song sentiment that you can take to the other agencies saying, We're gung ho on this, but even though this is not scheduled for action, we can all nod our head and give a sense that there's unanimous support to move this thing forward. So we can give direction. We give direction. So I'd like to hear from member so. I have a separate question altogether. So I just want I just wanted to check. Is that correct? She's not. Yes. You may do that. Into what I was. I remember day. Thank you. Two comments. First is on an overview comment. Several weeks ago the city council close the loop on a matter with regard to undergrounding of of. Lines, overhead lines coming up with a citywide strategy. And that was a matter that I dealt with in my first go around and. 11 years ago on 24. Sometimes the wheels of city hall runs very slow. All right, Councilmember Gorman, about that. This being 30 years or so. So hopefully we can get things going. I think the question that I have is I just want to make sure that technically and narrowly understood that we've exercised all our due diligence report gathering information. Or is there still outstanding work to be done? That's the that's the plan. If I could go back to to the vice minister. QUESTION We I think that three months, if that's acceptable, is a good timeframe. But we would also commit to coming back to you sooner if we have material progress report in the meanwhile. Thank you. Any other comments? So I want to thank staff residents for coming out here and I look forward to the updates. Thank you very much. Thank you. Six C presentation on the city's economic development programs and initiatives and status of the Economic Development Strategic Plan and recommendation to establish the Mayor's Economic Development Advisory Panel in lieu of re establishing an Economic Development Commission. And we're going to take a few minutes here, but people are exiting the room. Well, we're going to take a short recess. Okay. There she is. All right, so now we're done.

Adoption of Resolution Adopting an Agreement for Participation in the Alameda County Operational Area Emergency Management Organization. (Fire)

AlamedaCC_03062018_2018-5213

A5f and adoption resolution adopting an agreement for participation in the Alameda County Operational Area Emergency Management Organization. And we do have a speaker on this item. Okay. And this is Miss Gabby Dolphin. I met a mayor's council and city staff. It's a little sensitive. I just noticed. That there is. A bracket, the word fire after that statement. And I don't know if I just don't know enough to know. Anything about. The details of this, but I do feel that this might be an opportune time to mention Operation Urban Shield, the agreement to participate in the Alameda County Operational Area Emergency Management Organization. While recommended and understood undersigned by our County Board of Supervisors. Appears to be a thinly veiled. Hand-Off to the Alameda County Sheriff's Office to handle our emergency coordination program. I have absolutely no qualms with coordinated efforts in the face of natural disaster. And though there has been none to date in the Bay Area terrorist attack, however, it is incumbent upon all jurisdictions to look independently at what this association with ac0m means. Vis a vis the Alameda County. Sheriff's Office and his flagship program, Urban. Shield. Urban Shield is a wargame police training simulation. That used. To take place. Annually in Oakland, but was moved as. Of 2015 to. Pleasanton after growing public pressure. Against. Increasingly militarized police actions against that was shown nationwide and showed a disproportionate impact on the black community. Oakland is not the only city to decline participation in urban shield. The event was. Urban Shield was and is hosted by the Alameda County Sheriff's Office and is going to be held again in 2018. In addition to the simulation of disasters, there is a vendor show where companies market high tech weapons. And gear to. Police from around the world. The community is concerned with the lack of accountability and with a disregard for community community concerns. One of those one example is Urban Shield 2012. Sheriff Ahearn staff tested an unarmed aerial drone in front of television crew, setting off a. Heated debate. Over a then stalled plan to purchase two drones for the Alameda County Sheriff's Office. And that was 2012 and 2016. However, the headlines Red County Sheriff Quietly Expands Drone Fleet to six. This suggests to me a certain kind of arrogance and attitude. Now, mind you, I'm not against law enforcement. We need our elected officials from Board of Supervisors to City Council to provide checks and balances to the law enforcement arm of local government. We need the. Kind of oversight that ensures our sheriff's office shares the same values that we do as a community. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Remember Ashcraft as so as to not mislead the public about what this particular item is about. I wonder if we could ask either Fire Chief Edwin Rodriguez or Captain Sharon Oliver, whoever member I would like to actually go. I thought you had a question. I guess my question is, if we could ask one of them to clarify. Thank you. Let me go first to our city manager and let her respond or however you like to handle it. So Urban Shield is a program that our police department does training under, and this item is about a agreement with the county. That is pretty routine. We put it on the consent calendar because there's no funding allowed and it's updating it with. The fire department. Right. With the fire department. So our fire chief can elaborate. Sure. Thank you. Remember, as a council, I'm going to have our press officer, Captain Alter, answer that question for the public comment. Thank you very much. Captain Oliver. I mount a mayor, House members. So the agreement fits into the. Standardized emergency management system. That we work under in the state of. California. And it simply is. Saying that we agree to work in a chain. Of command up and down for. Communications. So the city communicates with the operational area, which is the Alameda County OS Office of Emergency Services, and that happens to live in the sheriff's office in Dublin. So it's just saying that we are going to work with them to get resources and share information in a disaster. Thank you. Do we have a motion? I'd like to make a motion. Second. All those in favor of my motion carries unanimously. Thank you very much. That completes our consent items. So now we are on six e. Introduction of ordinance approving a 15 year lease amendment with an option for a ten year extension between the City of Alameda and Greenway Golf Associates for premises located at Chuck Creek Golf Complex. The Senate requires four affirmative votes.

Consider Adopting an Urgency Ordinance to Remove Certain Grounds for Just Cause Evictions by Amending Ordinance No. 3140, an Urgency Ordinance of the City of Alameda Imposing within the City of Alameda a Temporary (65-Day) Moratorium on Certain Residential Rent Increases and on Evictions from all Residential Rental Units Except for Just Cause Evictions. [Requires four affirmative votes] (City Manager 2110)

AlamedaCC_12012015_2015-2344

Consider adopting an emergency ordinance to remove certain grounds for just cause evictions by amending Ordinance 3140 an urgency ordinance of the city amount of to imposing within the city. A temporary 65 day moratorium on certain residential rent increases and on evictions from all residential rental units except for just cause evictions. And if you want to speak on this item, if you could please turn in your your slip. So we have all the slips. And how many slips do we have? So at this point, we have ten speaker slips. And then is this the order that they returned in? And I'll be reading them in the order. And we're going to start with stealth presentation. Thanks. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, and members of the City Council. My name is Debbie Potter, and I'm the city's community development director. I'm going to be providing a brief staff report this evening. And then myself, along with the city attorney, are prepared to answer any questions. On November 5th, the City Council adopted an urgency ordinance that limits rent increases to no more than 7.99% over a 12 month period for multifamily rental units built before 1995. The moratorium ordinance also limits the basis on which property owners can serve termination notice termination of tenancy notices to enumerated reasons of just cause for a 65 day period. The urgency ordinance terminates on January 9th, 2016 or when legislation is adopted that replaces the urgency ordinance, whichever comes first. One of the primary reasons that the urgency ordinance was adopted was to provide stability in the rental market, while staff drafted legislation requested by the City Council to provide additional renter protections, including mediation, rent stabilization, relocation benefits and eviction protections. Several council members at the time the ordinance was adopted expressed their desire to maintain the status quo regarding tenancy and current rents. As noted, the ordinance currently provides 12 reasons that a property owner can serve a notice to terminate a tenancy ranging from 90 I'm sorry, ranging from nonpayment of rent to going out of the rental business. And those 12 enumerated reasons for eviction are included in Exhibit A of the ordinance. There is a there is a there is one of the one of the reasons that our is currently allowed for providing a notice of termination is to undertake substantial rehabilitation. That is number ten and exhibit A in the listing of the reasons for which you can serve a notice of termination of tenancy and that that Section ten and erm is going to call it up here on the Power Point. Section ten provides that a housing provider can serve a notice if the provider is proposing to do work on the unit that is valued at eight times the rent. Times the number of units for which the work is being proposed. And that the work will take more than 30 days to complete. And therefore the tenant needs to be terminated. So on on kind of reflection on this language, staff really feels and the council expressed concern about the fact that this language there's not a lot of process that's included in in this reason for notice of termination. There is there is no discussion about who determines that the value of the work is eight times the monthly rent, that the work will take at least 30 days to be completed, that whether or not building permits should be pulled before termination notices are are served. So given that there is ambiguity in this language and that there is not a lot of process that's been been outlined. Staff is recommending that that this Section ten, one of the 12 reasons that this this section be deleted from the ordinance and that we adopt that the council adopt an amended urgency ordinance, and that Section ten would be essentially listed as intentionally omitted. And the other thing that staff is proposing relative to Section ten is that for any notices that have been served. For substantial rehab, that those notices served between November 5th and December one, that those notices be deemed null and void and no longer in effect. And the removal of this provision is for the 65 day period that this ordinance is in effect. So that is one of the recommendations we have this evening for the Council. And then additional direction that was provided to staff was for staff to go through and look at the other 11 reasons that are provided for just cause of action under our ordinance. And if I could ask four for Exhibit A, Section five. There is another section of another basis on which just cause eviction notices can be served. And once again, staff feels like this provision of is perhaps also not as clearly drafted as it could have been and not as well informed by way of process. There is not we're not clear about how notice should be given and to whom notice should be given. And we did. I just want to say that we when we were drafting this ordinance for counsel's consideration, we took a look at ordinances in other jurisdictions and we focused in particular. And this is something that we often do because we want to make sure where we're really incorporating best practices when we recommend policy actions for the Council. And we were looking at the Richmond's ordinance. They were the most recent ordinance that was being looked at by by a local jurisdiction in the Bay Area. And we feel like this this may have been a provision that met some of the specific needs of the Richmond community, but we feel is maybe less less directly related to Alameda current situation. And so we just think because we don't want to trigger any unintended consequences in the next, you know, remaining month or so that we have on the moratorium, we would recommend that the council delete this section, too. And once again, we would if the Council wants to do that, we would replace number five this language with intentionally omitted. That would be the change that we would make. So that concludes my staff report and I am happy to answer any questions. Any clarifying questions from council. Then proceed with our speakers. Crystal Osorio and I'm going to name three at a time. J. Mariah I think it's f e r i. H it looks like than Aaron Subito. And you each have 3 minutes. Hello. My name is Krystal. I live in the Bayview Apartments and I'm also a student. And so now not only baby apartments are affected by this, but also other apartments here in Alameda. US renters make up almost half of the population in Alameda. Therefore, our rights deserve to be protected. If you could state. Your name when you speak. I'm Aaron Subito and I stand in solidarity with those who are affected by the evictions on Bayview Apartment. As a citizen, as a resident of Alameda myself, I can definitely see how gentrification it affects not just coming from San Francisco. It comes from San Francisco to Oakland's Alameda and a town where I've been spending 17 years of living and growing up in. I may not be living in the same apartment complex as Bayview, but who knows? This might be happening to my own family and that scares me and I don't want that to happen. And so we need to put some importance on rent control, not just we just do it now, not later. Now. And good evening. My name is. Jeffrey and like them, I am also a senior. Here at I'm a senior at Indiana High School. Now, the reason I'm here today is I want to show my support for not only for myself, but many of the people here as well, because this whole day I've been going around to several classes in my school to inform students about what's going on at the Bayview Apartments . To explain the increase in gentrification that's. Going on here in Alameda. There are 33 families living there, 33 families that have been living there for years. It's extremely. Difficult. To find affordable places to live. Nowadays. And now that they finally have a place that they can call home, they're being evicted. Now, as I spoke in these classes, every student gave me the same reaction of disbelief. They couldn't believe that this. Was going on, especially in their own communities. Some of these students live in these apartments. They have friends that live in these apartments and they have family that goes that lives there. Now to show. How much we support for this. To pass. I would like all the national students to stand up to show that we are supporting for this ordinance to pass. We have all gathered. Here today because. We don't want these families to lose their homes. It's the it's it's the it's it's getting Christmas. You don't want them to lose their homes. This. I just really I don't have any words for really what's going on. And we are here to show that we are here with these renters. If if a landlord wants to evict somebody, they better have a justifiable reason they cannot evict them. Just so we could let gentrification grow here in Alameda. And it's not just me. Every single one of these students that. Are standing up. They have family that lives here. And who knows, they could be targeted next. And we don't want that to happen. So, please, if you can pass this ordinance, you can stand with us and keep these homes. Thank you. And I. I counted approximately 60. If you have a different number, please let the clerk know before you leave. God. Thank you. Also, there are some who cannot make it today, but they're also either out there or spreading the word. Thank you very much. Sammy Gutierrez. Jimmy. When. Barney Duncan. But. It. Well, I thought you'll have my back. What? Okay. Yeah. But everybody goes, okay, I'm gonna start talking because I know we all want to get out here on time. My name's Sammy Gutierrez, and I am a counselor and civic engagement coordinator with Filipino Advocates for Justice. And I work with many of these students, and I work with students who live at the Bayview Apartments and. Bang. Okay. These are all the folks who are with us. This is their community. They are the folks who are living here. They. They're the families, the children who are living here. They are the friends. This is their community we represent. And so now we represent Bayview. We represent Alameda. We represent. And so now and we also represent by any hand, youth group. Bayanihan is a word in Tagalog. That means essentially the the community is going to work together in order to get something done. Here. We are here in order to protect these families and make sure that this ordinance is passed. We want you to see how how many folks support them. And we are asking you. To join us in that spirit of Bayanihan and pass the ordinance to protect these families. So we thank you for that. Jimmy Nguyen. Yes. Hi, everybody. My name is Jimmy Nguyen. I am a. My family rents a home here. Now, Amita and I. I just want to tell my own personal experience. I'm in a house with five boys. It's kind of, like, keeps you on your toes, but, I mean, it's. Telling them that we will be having to move away from the house that we've been in for all my life. It's is just so heartbreaking, you know? Sorry. It's super. Even taking a speaker. Every night. They tell me, are we going to stay in this house tomorrow? Don't. Just hear them say that. I usually don't cry. This is a little crazy. Just my mom works every single day from 8 to 8. I barely see her at home. And knowing that her her working is not enough to keep us here in this beautiful community where everybody here is a friend. We all. We make of this community as being diverse and just. Oui, oui, oui, oui. Just give this eccentricity to Alameda and the people there being displaced. We can't find homes anywhere else near here. It's so beautiful here. I've been here all my life, and I just. I don't want to change. Neither will it be for my brothers either. Please pass on its thank you. Annie Duncan. And then Dwayne Moles and then Michael John Torres. Hello, Mayor. Hello. City Council. I know. Most of. You and I've been. Up for 70 Central helping them. I've got to know many of them. It's terrible. To find out, especially at Christmas and. Thanksgiving. That you're getting kicked out of your. House. And now Christmas is almost over. Where are they going to go? Are we going to have tent cities here in Alameda like they have in Oakland? Because right now we have something called the fields and that's where a lot of them are staying. Not the people from 470 Central. The other people that have got evicted. And it's right next to the trailer where you get from the food bank. There's a lot of people. Living there in tents. In this cold. Weather with babies, with children. So, Mel, I'm looking to you. To make a decision. Because you're number one up there. So you've got to let these people know. What's going on? You have to know you've been a teacher, so you know what these kids are going through. Don't let them go. Through it any longer. I mean, they're stressed out as it is. Let's get something done about these rent increases. Ask the landlords to pay their own. Rent and maybe that'll help. Okay. Good evening, Mayor. City Council members. My name is Dwayne Moles. Here specifically to ask you to change the language in the emergency ordinance. And that is the Speaker of the House. Yep. Yep. People live through remodels all the time. I think. You could ask any number of people in this town. I owned I owned a house at 1905, Craftsman Cottage here in town for the better part of a decade. And, you know, remodel floors and kitchens and bathrooms and all that stuff. And, you know, I didn't need to be. I didn't need to affect myself. So what is it we're talking about here? We're talking about efficiency. Versus family stability. That's really what we're talking about, this issue. Can we do it cheaper if we kick everyone out? Versus I. We let the families stay. And this city in particular. As values, as values that it expresses through ordinances and through its regulations. We do it all the time where we say efficiency isn't the guidance for everything. That same cottage. I was putting in new windows at these really cheap, terrible aluminum side sliders was not period. And you know what? I could replace those with the cheapest possible option there. But now our city says, you know, we value we value our architectural heritage. So you know what? You need to actually go back. You need to put something in that's not the cheapest option available, not the most efficient version available, but something that represents this part that we value in our city architectural heritage. I agree with that. I'm glad that the city has that. I would argue in this situation, family stability. Stability of all the people you've seen come up here is a value that this community has that outweighs any of these efficiencies that you get when you evict people. We're talking about the ability to come in and do a little renovation here and there. We're not talking about you know, there's already stuff for demolition, demolition, health and safety. Those are the other items. So, you know, I would just ask that you give the people that live in the buildings the same kind of protections that we give the actual buildings in this town. And I think this is this is this is a value that this town has that applies not just to this little raw. But the ordinances that we're looking forward to next month and continuing in the city. Thank you so much for your work so far. Thank you. So I have only three more speakers Philips, Michael, John Torres, Eric Strimling, and then John Klein. If there's anyone else that wants to speak on this issue, please turn in your slip. Thank you. Honorable Patricia Spencer Mayor, Honorable Frank Matter, U.S. Vice Mayor, Notable Members of the City Council. Michael John Tory, former member of the Board of Housing Commission of the City of Alameda. I know, as you know, some time ago, another group of people came with a situation similar to this back, I guess, 2003, 2004, I think they were the harbor and the Tenant Association Group that came because some landlords wanted to remodel their units and they were evicting units, evicting tenants too fast and not giving their notice. Seems to me like the same thing is happening from what I've been reading with the Bayview. Apartments that tenants are being rushed out because they want to do some remodeling. And I can't argue with remodeling, but I think that tenants should have been given a fair notice, a warning that that was going to happen so that they would be able to find another place to stay without having all this turmoil. And I thought that you, Mr. Vice Mayor, and Tony de Soto had worked out that that issue and came up with a policy that went into the the the charter that would allow for tenants to have a fair amount of time to move out and find another place without being impacted by a landlord so quickly because they want to remodel. Thank you. Thank you. Eric Strimling and then John Klein. Good evening. There's nothing that I can say that it would be anything close to as powerful as these youth coming up and speaking to you. I think that what's at stake here is a stable Alameda community. What's at stake here is the right. Of an Alameda to live in their. Home securely. How many want to live under a 60 day? You can you can be forced to move. I'd like to point out to you, I strongly support this ordinance. But it only is going to last for another 35 days. I ask you, make it permanent. Make the eviction ban a permanent law in Alameda. We can adjust it. You're adjusting it now as you find the faults. You'll adjust them. But how do you ask these kids and not know if they're going to stay in school for the rest of the year? Every year of their lives. How do they know, not know if they can go on the Boy Scout camping trip because they may not live in town anymore by the time it actually happens. I didn't live like that. When I was a kid, I was thrown out of an apartment because the landlord wanted to remodel. They changed the carpets and painted the walls. That was the remodel. That was in Santa monica. Santa monica passed a very successful rent control model. And I'd like you to look at it. I'd like you to really consider making it the law of this city. But please make the eviction ban, at a minimum, the permanent law of the city. Thank you. And our last speaker on this item, John Kline. Managed John Combs Alma to Renner's coalition. I can't add much. Thank you for having the political will to back up and make this change. It's obvious that it was it's needed and we look forward to doing something similar with in the long term and permanent. You've seen all the students. I want everybody else that's here for in support of the change to stand up. Everybody else stand up for all of us. You see all the students over there. But then you have all of these people in support as well. So we're going to keep coming back until you get it right. You got it right. You're getting it right. And so. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Comments from Council. Nebraska. I'm ready to make a motion, but I will just insert that in the last. Well, since we met before and passed the emergency ordinance, I've had an opportunity to talk to a lot of landlords in this town, especially the smaller property owners, a number of property managers, all of whom were horrified by what the new owner of 470 Central did to serve a notice notices of eviction on all the tenants at 470 Central, the very day after we met in a special meeting to consider the emergency moratorium. So and what I heard from them is that they would never have done the sort of thing he did, the timing , the way it was done. Some of them are already paying relocation assistance to tenants when there is a reason, a legitimate reason that they need to vacate. And so certainly what this experience has done for the council, I think, at least for me, is to help inform us and staff of the kinds of measures we want to make sure are incorporated into an ordinance that we come back and vote on in January when this moratorium is up. And and I will say, I also met with the the owner of 470 Central Avenue and, you know, had a discussion about the way I wish things would have happened. But this is an opportunity for the council to step in, to add a protection that we now realize is needed. And so with that, I would like to move that. We adopt an urgency ordinance to remove certain specified grounds for just cause evictions by amending. Ordinance number three went for, oh, an emergency ordinance of the city of Alameda imposing within the city of Alameda a temporary 65 day moratorium on certain residential rent increases and evictions from all residential units except for just cause evictions. And specifically, the two amendments we were making were to remove paragraph ten, which is the evictions for for doing renovations and paragraph five, which has to do with tenants who have not. Executed a new written agreement with the housing provider. I'll second that, but would also like to talk in my turn. All right. And also, I think Steph suggested that in regards to paragraph five, that we substitute language. And do you want to say what that was? So just to to be clear on the motion, you do have and they are on the website as well. You do have proposed ordinances that are red line showing the amended provisions which have some, whereas is and also address in the body of the ordinance itself, the fact that the notices for rehabilitation evictions would be null and void if they were issued between November 5th and December one, which is today's date. So that is on the website in there and then on Exhibit A, which is part and parcel of the ordinance. There are two sections within Exhibit A that are just cause evictions. One being Section five and one being Section ten. And each of those would be the language that is in there now would be struck. And instead, what would appear in. The ordinance is that that section was intentionally omitted. And that is what I believe the motion is and seconded. It is indeed. Thank you. Councilmember Ashcroft, did you have any other comments? Not at this time. Vice Mayor and I just wanted to note that. Our intention in putting the moratorium in place on November 4th. My understanding of these amendments are to emphasize the intent that we had, that during this moratorium period, we would freeze no fault evictions. That would provide some sort of protection while we were while staff was putting together ordinance for our consideration on January 5th as is that meet the Skull City attorney. That is correct. Thank you. A number. You. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I think the one speaker I think put it best that this represents our values. I can't remember which speaker it was, but for me the value is and this should be the underlying premise of anything we do here to protect tenants is that. Everyone has a right to stay in their home. I mean, that should be the number one value. That should be the number one goal of any protection. Now, I understand that there's sometimes when that's not always possible. But if you pay your rent, if you're not a nuisance, if you're not committing criminal activity, you basically should be able to stay in your home. I mean that to me and as staff is drafting our new ordinances. To me, that should be the underlying premise behind all of those ordinances. So that was our intent earlier this month when we met. I mean, our intent was has the vice mayor said to put a freeze on these unjust evictions and give staff a time to draft an ordinance that we could all have some consensus on? You know. Without talking too much about what happened in the last not this close session, but the last one. I've never seen this council so united as we were in that meeting, so I think bravo to our council for being united. And when I look at this, I'm hoping that staff comes back with a comprehensive set of tenant protections and not a menu where we can pick and choose. Because if you do that, then it's like the Jenga game, you know, you pull one out. I don't like some things. Another council member doesn't like something, and then before you know it, you pull enough things out, it collapses and we don't end up with reasonable tenant protection. So I'm hoping to see that when it comes back. And again, you know, if we focus on making sure that we keep people in their homes, you know, we passed this ordinance. The vice mayor said it was our intent to do freeze the status quo, to make sure that we could protect tenants. And I'd like to see that we protect tenants above and beyond Christmastime and above and beyond this moratorium, because this is not something that's going to go away. And on January 11th, when the moratorium expires and and the reason I do that is I don't particularly care for this term, but now it's it's being used housing provider . But the critical part of housing provider is your housing provider. And housing to me is one of the most critical needs now on food, shelter, clothing. And that's where we have to come down. When we come down on a policy, in my mind, on the side of the tenants, on the side of protecting people's right to live in quiet enjoyment in their home, it doesn't matter whether their home is technically owned by somebody else or it's owned by them, they should have the right to quiet enjoyment and be able to not worry not only at Christmas time, but all year round that they're not going to be evicted. So as we go forward, you know, we've we've listened and we've, you know, we've had reasonable landlords come up here and say, let us police ourselves. And I think that has worked with other reasonable landlords. But despite letting them police themselves, we've had double digit ten, 20, 25% increases and we've had these mass unjust evictions. And then we've been we've been asked to, well, let's just try enhanced mediation. Well, in my mind, you know, mediation is you get in a room and you figure out how much you're going to pay so I can leave my building or leave my unit. And to me, that does not meet my fundamental goal, which is to keep as many people in their houses as possible. So I hope as we go forward and we find ways to structure our ordinance, you know, whether it it it provides temporary relocation and requires that tenants are allowed to come back in their homes because basically these are their homes. I'd like to make sure that we we protect that right of tenants to be able to stay in their homes, even if they do have some type of renovations. Because, you know, face it, folks, we have we don't have any rental units that are under or under 40 years old here in town. So some of them will require some type of renovation. But let's find a way to do that in a way where we don't kick people out. I'm ready. Well, thank you very much. Thank you very much to all the youth who had come out this evening. I know this is a busy time and like many of you, you want to be with your families in your homes. But let us make sure to say that when the property owners serve the eviction notices to the 33 families, they not only punched their families in the gut, but they punished all of Alameda as well. And rest assured that in city hall you have a force that has awakening that will fight on behalf of the residents here to do whatever we can to make sure that the residents at 470 stay there. What that means in the long term is that we have to do new types of legislation and talent that has never been in place, such as just cause evictions. We have to look. We have to implement a just cause eviction in the city of Alameda. It has to be done in the immediate term. We have to modify the ordinance along the lines that we're talking about. So stay tuned. The fight is just beginning, and it's not just about a470. It's not just about this or that apartment. It's about the character of all of Alameda, not just the west end of town, as socio economically diverse as it is, but it's also all all of Alameda is at risk. And so we need to do new things that we have not done before. We need to look at a strengthened just cause of action so that you can only get evicted if you're if you haven't paid your rent, if you've done some kind of crime and then some kind of damages. We also have to look at strengthening the rent review advisory committee process on the table. For some on the table for some is rent control. You know, there are different models to help protect the residents. But for some, that that is on the table. Everything is on the table now because the force has awakened. We as your five representatives of our city council, we are doing our best to represent the city because we know that the city is behind us in being behind you. Thank you. I want to thank staff for bringing this back at this time. I think it was critical that it be returned to us. I think what you're hearing is that council is united behind this. This is a serious problem. From my perspective, I think we all got together and we had a meeting where we had a huge turnout of people that want to speak on November 4th. We were here until 130 in the morning and we made a decision. And then the next day we hear from tenants that have received eviction notices. That was a problem. It was disappointing to me. We have many landlords in our town who are excellent landlords, who really do care about our community, who are part of the fabric of our community. There are many that do not raise rents or have reasonable rent increases. Many with long term tenants. At this point, we have a few that I call outliers that don't really seem to get the message. Which is why we're back today. To clarify the message to me, the intent. My intent was that we really would give everyone what I call time to breathe. We have all known people that have been receiving these notices, sometimes rent increases that they can't afford that make it so that they cannot continue to reside here in town. We also know many that have received these notices, 60 day notices to vacate. We know families. We have students that are being forced to find new homes outside of the community. Many and and I appreciate having so many students from Encino here today. I think it's very important that students be part of the government process. It's absolutely important that we hear your voice as you are impacted by these decision. So thank you for coming out tonight. Moving forward, I continue to hope that we will be able to work together as a community and that these outliers will get the message . I really want to thank all our meetings for working with all of the landlords and trying to share with them. But we think is important what I'm going to call the Alameda Way. So thank you for coming out. Thank you for continuing your work, your public work, as well as the work that's happening behind the scenes to reign in what I'm going to call reining in these these outlier landlords, of which the majority of our landlords are not. Yes. Member Ashcraft thank and I did just want to add while you were speaking Madumere, it occurs to me that you and I and I think Councilmember Desai just said that everything is on the table. And I do think that this council has some serious challenges before it going forward, not just with crafting the right ordinance that gives protection to our renters and also takes into account the needs of landlords. Because as was also noted, we have aging housing stock in this in this community, and there are legitimate needs to to renovate it. But there are better ways of going about it than the examples that we saw the day after a special meeting. But I think something this council is going to have to grapple with is it is supply and demand. And when we have the opportunity to add to our housing stock and especially some multifamily of which has been noted, we have it built with a few exceptions for more than 40 years. We've got to look at doing that and finding out the best way to do it, address traffic at the same time. But we we can't you know, there have to be a lot of tools in our toolkit going forward that we know what we have to do between now and January. And I also want to commend our staff. We have thrown a lot at them in the last couple of weeks, months, and they've got even more to do. But they're doing a great job for all of us and all of you. So thank you, staff. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. I don't believe I use the term. Everything is on the table. That was Councilmember Davis. All right. Thank you for clarifying that. And with that being said, no other comments by council. I'll call the question. All those in favor. I oppose abstentions. Motion carries unanimously. And I'm going to call for a short recess. Thank you. Thank you. Then. Thank you very much. If you can take your seats. And we have item six. See?

Recommendation to receive and file the Fiscal Year 2014 Year-End Budget Performance Report, and increase appropriations in several funds across several departments for various purposes to reflect final expenditures. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_02102015_15-0109

Thank you. Next item, Madam Clerk. Item seven Report from Financial Management Recommendation to receive and file the fiscal year 2014 year end budget performance report and increase appropriations in several funds across several departments for various purposes to reflect final expenditures citywide. Thank you. I know, Mr. West, you wanted to make a report on this, and then we have a motion. Well, go ahead and make a report. And then I have Councilwoman Pryce, first mayor, councilmembers. A brief report by our budget manager, Lee Erickson. Good evening, Mayor and City Council. This is the year end performance report for FY 14 for the period ending September 30th. It reports on our performance for the fiscal year and also includes a few technical technical adjustments. Generally, this report is good news. Citywide urine spending came in under budget appropriation, including for the general fund. Also in the general fund, revenues did exceed estimates. Overall, the general fund had a 3.2 million surplus, and this is in addition to the $5.5 million of surpluses which was already set aside for CalPERS stabilization fund. Also, there was a $3.5 million surplus in the Uplands Oil Fund in accordance with City Council policy. The city manager is proposing that 5% of the surplus in both the general fund and uplands be set aside for unfunded liabilities. Other proposals include the establishment of an innovation and efficiency initiatives revolving fund, and if that is approved, the mechanics of that fund will be brought back to the Budget Oversight Committee for review and recommendations. As this idea was generated in part at the BMC in the fall. A variety of other proposed uses are also recommended, including the special election in district for the Bloomberg team match. Setting aside funds to build a two month uplands oil reserve and implementation of the pavement manner management plan. There would be there will be a study session on the pavement management plan scheduled hopefully for some time in March . Lastly, there are three technical adjustments, as I mentioned before this, and they're all offset by revenues. So this concludes the staff report and I'm available for any questions you may have. Thank you. Let me go to Councilwoman Price. I actually want to make a motion in regards to this item, and I want to. Make a have a modification to the proposed. Proposed plan for the use of the expenditures. Would this be an okay time to do that? Yes. Okay. So I would like to reduce the $2 million that we have allocated for innovation and efficiency initiatives. And with that $2 million, I'd like to reduce that $2 million to $400000 to allow some seed money there. Put 500,000 in reserves. Allocate 900,000 for infrastructure to be divided by the nine districts. And allocate $200,000 to the Long Beach Fire Department to invest in their search program. Did you want to? That's the motion, correct? Okay, great. Counts Councilwoman Mongo. I appreciate the additional funding to our reserves. I think that this is a great investment. Also, the next big emergency could be any day. And I think that ensuring that our CERT program is properly funded, we've heard time and time again Council member Urunga and I attended the CERT Citywide event in the in Hartwell Park several months ago, and the program is in dire need. And I worry that if we don't invest, we might not have what we need to make sure to shelter in place for seven days. My district use recently has undergone several outages and we have realized how completely unprepared our communities are for an upcoming emergency. So I appreciate the emotion as stated. Thank you, Susie. 200,000. The fire department needs 300,000, but we're going to help them with an independent fundraiser to raise the other hundred thousand. Okay. Thank you. That's been the motion to the second next have council member Austin. Thank you. Can you repeat the emotion again and how you wanted to allocate that? We allocate this or we propose to do so. Absolutely. And I hope that the numbers added up, but I'll go again slowly. So $400,000 seed money, which is for the innovation and initiative efficiency initiatives from the 2 million reduced to 400,000, so that there's still some seed money there for staff to have the opportunity to pursue some of those initiatives. Right. 500,000 for to go into reserves so that we've set some money aside, 900,000 to go into infrastructure to be divided by nine, and then 200,000 to go to the fire department to help with their cert program. I do want to point out that with the one time funds that we've received and reallocated, we have been able to provide a lot of resources for the Long Beach Police Department, and so it would be nice to invest in public safety a bit further and provide some of those additional resources to the fire department. They too have had major impacts to their budget. So this is something that they can do with one time funds. And of course, we all have infrastructure projects that are a major priority in our our districts and not knowing what the future infrastructure, budgets and divide by nine opportunities will be. I think this is a good way to allocate some cost savings that staff has been able to to together generate over the last year. So first of all, I think this is this is welcome news and this is a good problem to have, not a problem at all to have a surplus and extra resources to work with. I am going to be supporting your recommendation for the how to to to to allocate these resources, because I think it's important that we we do invest in our infrastructure, continue to do so until you have crumbling sidewalks and curbs and we need street repairs and we can never put enough money into infrastructure. That as a matter of fact, I mean, would that work? You know, we had a robust study session on medical marijuana. I would venture to guess that the vast majority of our residents in the city would love to have love us to have a study session on how we're going to fix the infrastructure in this city. And so this extra $900,000 divided by nine well will serve our districts well. And the vast majority of our residents will. The Innovation and Technology Fund we in fiscal year 14 and one time funds we put aside I believe, $200,000 for toward that. This bolsters that that that fund even more by adding an extra 400,000. I agree $2 million might have been a little little lofty in terms of that expectation. But the 400,000 innovation going to that, I will completely support the I do see on this a $200,000. Allocation from uplands for an attorney for labor negotiations. And that's that's questionable because I think we have a great city attorney's office and I know we have individuals who are our subject matter experts on labor negotiations. And so I'm I have some questions about that, that allocation, particularly because I don't think there's a whole lot of money on the table for labor negotiations and we're going to give $200,000 to the lawyers say no. I mean, you can pay me ten bucks to say that. I mean, it's it's going to be easy to do. I don't know that that that's that difficult or worth that investment. And and I'm glad to see us. I think overall, this is this is a balanced, balanced document with those corrections. So I will support the the motion on the floor. Okay. Thank you, Councilmember Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So just a few questions. And so first with this innovation fund. So I see there's 2 million added here. How does this add to the 600,000 that we already discussed? Mr.. Mr.. MODICA Mr.. West, I'm going to turn that. Over to Mr. Modica and Mr.. Malik, if you can also address. Let me you know, let me complete the whole question and then we get a whole answer from you. I know we did. 600 K is that represented here? And this is us tidying that up because I know we talked about like the purpose for this fund, like some funds were going to go to that the Bloomberg match . But we also wanted to have a body of dollars as a revolving fund to incentivize departments. Help me understand this. Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor and Councilmember Richardson and members of the council. So what you voted on last week was to authorize us to to enter into an agreement with Bloomberg and to provide up to $1,000,000 with the match. The money that's in front of you tonight is actually those funds that you already said you're going to commit. So we were going to pay for the $1 million match with $400,000 of these funds. Plus, there was going to be a $2 million infrastructure I'm sorry, innovation and efficiency reserve, of which up to 600,000 would be used to to fund this implementation. And so, as I understand the motion tonight, you know, there isn't any other innovation and technology money out there. We don't have $200,000 set aside. What we would have would be $400,000 with a fund balance and 400,000 of the energy and efficiency, leaving us $200,000 short for our commitment for a Bloomberg Innovation Fund, which would have to be funded out of next year's budget. So how would that jeopardize our opportunity to have that Bloomberg grant? Well, the Bloomberg grant, we we will have committed to that. So that will be a commitment. We will just have to identify that fund somewhere else. We have two years to identify the funds so we could either get $200,000 back tonight or we would have to budget that in the next fiscal year and identify those resources to meet our grant obligations. Okay. So we set aside 400,000 that's represented here. And then the idea was because we would establish this fund 600. I know we had this conversation last week or last council meeting when we talked about the Bloomberg fund, and that's why I noticed these things. So so we would need at least $600,000 in the Innovation Fund in order to do what we attempted to do last week. Yes. If you wanted to fund it this year, yes. You would need 600,000. Correct. Okay. And can you just elaborate on the purpose of the innovation fund? So the Innovation Fund was something that has been talked about in last year's budget but wasn't funded, was talked about by the Budget Oversight Committee and staff, was requested to come back. And the concept is to create a revolving fund. Often in departments. We have innovative ideas. We got a lot of things that need to get funded, but there's not a funding source to front the money in order to implement the savings. And so that was the idea of this fund. Is there a concrete example? Yes, I can give you an example. For example, it could be investing in energy efficiency. We've seen a number of projects where if you put in an h-back system for a two or $300,000, you can save several hundred that or several thousand dollars each year in terms of energy efficiency, water efficiency, irrigation improvements, we're even looking at things like fiber for revenue, putting in city fiber and seeing if we can and, you know, make money off of putting in city fiber. Those would be some examples. Okay. I think that makes sense. I got to before I move on, I got a question. Councilmember Price, I want to I want to understand how you arrived at the number 400,000 for innovation. Well, and I have to say, I talked with the city manager about this yesterday, and I'm learning some new information tonight because it wasn't as clear to me yesterday. My understanding was the 400,000 that we had already allocated for the Bloomberg grant that was going to be part of three payments over the quarter, not payments, three match . Amounts over a three year period. Correct. And that the $2 million that we had put in this was to encourage staff to come up with innovative and different ways to apply for grant funding, etc. that would help them be more efficient and innovative. And that's why, to me, $2 million for that process at a time when, you know, we have so many other needs, I guess seemed a little bit high. So if if, if, in fact what Mr. Modica said is, is accurate, we may want to and I'd be totally open to if somebody wants to make a friendly. I still got the floor. Okay. I know. So, so just so where I came up with that 400,000 is that that give them some. See I thought that was seed money to encourage staff to apply for different grants. That's what I thought it was. So if we want to make that 600, then we can take, you know, potentially from the reserves and make that 600 and maybe even fully fund the fire department's cert program at 300 and just have less money for reserves. But that's just a thought. Okay. So I think there might need to be some adjustments to this innovation fund, particularly, one, we need to make whole the $600,000 commitment we voted on. And then if we if the idea is to invest another 400,000, then that would need to be a minimum $1,000,000 to make that whole our past commitment. And then what we want to do today. Then I would say this reserve here, which reserve is this out being allocated to. This half million dollar reserve proposal. Well now? Well, it depends on what that amount is, but it would go into the General Reserve. So which reserve would you place? The same as a city manager? Well, we've got a number of reserves. Lia. That's an unfunded liability. Right now we are reserves are actually within the financial policy limits. We do have several of them. So we have an operating reserve. We have an emergency reserve. We have our CalPERS stabilization fund. We have unfunded liabilities. Or we could leave it in the general fund in funds available, and that would also count towards our total reserves . So we so we have a number of reserves that I mean, our obligation, our reserve obligations are healthy. This. So would you we're you saying that you want this to go into pension stabilization fund or General Reserve. So the 500,000 that we currently have as the recommendation by staff, we would just add to that so that we would have whatever, whether it's a million or 700,000 if we decide to. You mean the uplands reserve oil? Flic flood fluctuation, up to 2,000,002 months reserve. Remaining ending funds available. So so that's not a reserve. Those can be allocated tonight. So those aren't. The 500,000 that we would have left over. Yeah. So. So this is not a reserve. So this is allocate we can allocate that tonight. So you're saying that's the funding that you want to place in to the reserve? Now. Leah, can you explain that? Do you understand what I'm trying? Here's where I'm at. I've. I've added up. Hold on. I understand where I'm going. Let me get there. There's $400,000. That was a proposal to innovation. There was $500,000 to a reserve. There was $900,000 to. What is this? Infrastructure. I mean, we've got $200,000 for cert. That's $2 million. Now, that was in lieu of the innovation and efficiency initiatives, $2 million. That means this 500,000 that's at the bottom that we can allocate tonight is still on the table. That's correct. That's not allocated to a reserve. Well, it is it is referred to as a reserve. If I if you're asking me a question and I'm referring to Lia to answer that question, because she just answered, I. See those as unallocated dollars. Yeah. A reserve is something we're specifically intentionally reserving for purpose. I think we're just calling them different things, but thinking about the same the same pot of money. I mean. When I think about when I think about a reserve, we've got our pension stabilization fund, we've got a number of reserves, as Lia mentioned, with different purposes. So I think if we talk about a reserve, we need to be specific. So I would just. Move on from there. So I'm going to I'm going to say that I would like to offer a substitute motion. And before I do that, how do we arrive it like I'm a cert graduate. I went through it with my wife. Support that program. How do we arrive at $200,000 is the number they need. The chief says they need 300,000. And if, in fact, we were willing to move the numbers around a little bit, I think there would be support to fund them at the full 300,000. I think council would like to do that if we can find a way to do that. I get it. So so the issue I have is typically I like to get budget requests from department heads through the city manager in the by agenda so that we have the opportunity to talk with them about this. I haven't heard of any need from for this for cert. I know that we had a conversation a while back about saving this CERT coordinator position, and there was a lot of discussion about that. And what they ultimately decided to do was they found other grant funds to keep that program going. So what was the specific purpose for the 200 or $300,000 that we allocate tonight? Will allow them to fully fund their cert program. Is. Is anyone here from the fire department? I'd like to better understand what that means. My understanding was, I mean, they have one position. A mayor and city council, Rich Brant, deputy chief, actually saw programs under fire prevention. Actually, we don't have any more grant funds. We are funding our CERT coordinator currently out of our budget the best we can. With the recommendation of the city manager. What we're trying to do is move that into a civilian spot where I can get somebody in who can coordinate number one. And number two is we're working with Cal State Long Beach right now and their emergency management program to try and get some interns as well. We have over. 400 people on a waiting list. Plus, we have numerous high schools that need to serve programs as well. We just don't. Have the resources to be able to train. Those people at. At. Our current levels. So you want to utilize this, too, so you don't. So the coordinator position that you currently have. You don't have funding so you're making do you use this in relief to could support that position as well as internships to move your program? That's part of it, yes. And then we also have resubmitted a U.S. grant for U.S. grant funding because of the containers that we're going to put in each district that are going to fund our resources and our materials that we need for our people. To respond. In case of those types of emergencies where they can take care of their neighbors for at least 72 hours prior to us getting there. Thank you, Deputy Chief. So the the issue that I take with that is that we don't fund positions with one time dollars and we do through overtime with PD. But this is a slippery slope. If we get into there's a position that was grant funded and we're going to use one times to extend it. Now we're getting into system support. We're calling a program ongoing through one times when that's not necessarily the case. So I think that's an inconsistent fiscal policy that we shouldn't necessarily do that. However, if we had a commitment from the fire department that this is not going to support positions, I think there is a place where we can help support this program without saying this goes to full time positions and FTE within the department. So I'm going to make a substitute motion to make the Innovation Fund at $1 million by taking this $500,000 reserve in place and into placing it into innovation. I'm going to take this cert $200,000 and I'm going to offer 1000 $100,000 to help support that program. And then the remainder remainder which it should be $600,000, which is the $500,000 as unallocated plus the $100,000 we have from CERT. I would ask that we take that and divide that $600,000 by nine, and that would be my motion. Oh, that's in addition to the $900,000 already and into this infrastructure fund. So right. So we're now we're at 1.5 million for infrastructure. We're at we're at 1.5 million for infrastructure. We're at $1 million for innovation, 1.4 million for infrastructure, $1 million for innovation and $100,000 for cert, a total of 2.5 million to be consistent with what we have. So that's my motion. Okay. There's been a motion by counsel or is there a second on the motion? There's a second. Councilman Austin, did you want to speak to your second or over speaker's list? No. Okay. Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to ask the city manager just a question about the Bloomberg fund, and then I wanted to address the motion. Is is that funding coming through today? Tom. So I'm sorry, could you restate the question? Is the funding coming through today? Yes. What's the status of that funding? Oh, the Bloomberg funding. So, yes, we do have $3 million committed. We are we've got the authority now from council to execute the grant agreement, and we're waiting for the actual grant agreement. Then we'll sign it and then the funds will be available. The $3 million, which is 3 million over over three years. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. I was also trying to. Councilmember Richardson, I think your substitute substitute had us overfunded by 400 unless you were looking at the remaining ending funds available. I'm not sure. Yes. So early. Earlier I checked with the city manager about that money and that is available for our purposes tonight if needed. Okay. I appreciate that. Well, I'd like to make a substitute substitute motion and. Take $600,000 for seed money for innovation and technology, 200,000 for the reserve, as Councilmember Price mentioned, 900,000 divided by nine and to fully fund the 300,000 to the CERT program. And Councilmember Richardson, you're correct in that we don't utilize one time dollars for ongoing expenses. I do believe we've done so with gap funding, especially for grant funded programs. And I can and and I take our policy. Initiatives very seriously, our especially your budget policies. And I do believe we should not use one time dollars for ongoing expenses, but I consider this gap funding and I'm comfortable with that. And so that's my substitute substitute motion, which I believe Councilmember Price is what you would articulate it earlier. So I have to make it. Okay. So there's been a motion and a second, and I just want to make sure I understand the motion. Right. I'm going to restate this whole thing and have staff restate it for us so that we're all on the same page. Can we restate the motion? And so that we know that and let's answer the questions that were raised and kind of lay out what vice mayors propose. Please. So, Mr. Mayor, the substitute substitute motion would be to to leave $600,000 in the Innovation and Efficiency Initiatives Fund, which would free up 1.4 million. And that 1.4 million would be allocated 200,000 to the CERT program, 900,000 to divide by nine. I'm sorry. Sorry. Reserves and then 300,000 to the CERT program. Okay. Hold on. Hold on 1/2. So there's only one person who has a floor. So Vice Mayor Lowenthal has the floor. I just have a question, Vice Mayor, if you don't mind, I what I want to make sure, because now I'm a little bit confused, is that the Bloomberg Innovation Fund is as whole as per the grant process that we went through last week. And so in the motion that that the vice mayor is making is the Bloomberg Innovation Fund Hall. Yes, we believe we have $1 million, then set aside 600,000 of which would come from the Innovation and Efficiency Fund. And 400,000 is as part of the item in front of you tonight from from ending fund balance for a total of $1 million. Okay. And that's and I'm glad you clarified that, Mr. Mayor. That's why the ending fund balance I don't view as being on the table in that regard, because as part of the Bloomberg are set aside for Bloomberg funding. And so so you articulated it correctly, is that it would leave that intact as my belief as well. Okay, great. And so now I have a motion and a second on that substitute. So I'm going to go to Councilman Mongo and then I'm going to go to the speaker's list. Councilmember Lowenthal I mean. Vice Mayor Lowenthal. So just to clarify, because I know there was some questions about operating reserve versus unfunded liability reserve and the 500,000 that might be the variance right now. 900 for infrastructure. Correct 304 cert. That puts us at 1200 600 for innovation. That puts us at 800, which gets us to the full million. That leaves 700 unallocated of the 2.5 million. So the 700 would be the unfunded liability reserve to get us that to the to 2.5. So we're not going to leave the 500 in the operating reserve. We're going to move it into the unfunded reserve, which is in the first line of the budget list. I'm going to look to Miss Eriksen, because in that calculation, I'm not sure that we we fulfill what Mr. Modica said. We did. Sorry, Madam Vice Mayor, we are fine with the Bloomberg grant. The remaining ending funds available is considered part of our total combined reserves, so it can remain there and there would be 700,000 left there and that would just be part of our total combined reserves. Thank you. So so, Councilmember Lowenthal, would you be open to slightly reducing the reserve and increasing the infrastructure to find the middle ground between the original amendment and the. Substitute amendment. Yes. Okay. Would we be comfortable with 500,000? You wanted to shift 500,000. Okay. Shift 500,000. So that would be 1.4 to infrastructure 600 Innovation 300 ASSERT and the remainder to the unfunded liability reserve. Yes, great. Okay, good. We have a motion on the floor, which I think we all understand. Councilman Price. Okay. Can't remember us. Well, what happened? Council member. Okay. Vice marathoning for you. Did you come back in? Okay. I'm confused. Got some free Ringo. Oh, I really love our discussion and especially the. The addition of infrastructure funds, but I think we should use some street repairs. But what I'm mostly concerned about at this point is I know we're adding these funds to the CERT program and and there were some other programs that we discussed earlier this year, like the Language Access Program that isn't addressed here and don't know. We were talking about finding some funds for that and I don't see that here in this budget and I'm not prepared right now to tell you how much it needs, because if I recall correctly, it was about 350,000. We we funded it up to about 225, if memory serves me right. So I would like to see that that program fully funded and take off on that. And also, in terms of the of the state program, we did go to that to that to that training. However, I did not see any kind of preparation for bilingual people on that. There's no there are no there were no speakers in Combi or in Spanish or any other language. So I would encourage the fire department to, uh, to use those additional funds that they're getting tonight to look at finding some translators or training for bilingual folks in that program, knowing that we have a very diverse community in Long Beach, some who would need the language services available as well. So please look at that as well. Okay. Thank you, Councilmember Richardson. I'm good. Okay. Mr. Modica. Just a clarifying question for Councilmember Mongeau. She was originally talking about putting $200,000 to ending fund balance, but in her last motion said $200,000 to the unfunded liability reserve. Can we get clarification on which one is correct? Mr. MODICA That was actually mine. Oh, excuse me. Vice Mayor Lowenthal, did you want to clarify that or. Your question was too shifted? It appeared that the $200,000 would be the ending fund balance. So that would be left over in our budget as a small amount of $200,000. I also heard that the $200,000 should go to the unfunded liability reserve. Just a clarification on where that 200,000 should go. So I think it would be wise to if we're able to hold it in operations until close of of filing is that. Yes, we would recommend that it would we would have a minimum of that $200,000 and ending fund balance. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. There's a motion on the floor. Any public comment on the item? Please come forward. Very good. You click as the aggressor. I'm glad the councilman pressed accountable on the price, pulled this off. I had to circle it. Actually, the first thing was more technical. When you have something like this and you can check with the city attorney and work it out with the city clerk. But I don't think this should have ever been said. Recommended to receive and file something like this for sale and receive or adopt. I think would have been a better word. Ordinarily, things that are received on file or not as important decisions. Clearly this is given the dollar amount in the appropriate discussion. But if my understanding is correct, also, this is a work this is based upon based upon the fact that the Mr. Bloomberg is willing to underwrite what some people already do and others may, such as the ninth U.S. Circuit Court and also James Comey's organization to underwrite what some people might rightly view as Tammany Hall West. Right. I would suggest holding off until you have the check in hand or the funds in the bank. If for some reason they do not approve it. Because that would mean you would have to come back and do some readjustments. It just doesn't make sense to commit to a project or to say this is what you know, to commit to a project until you had the cold, hard and ready in your hands or in the bank. Thank you. When I go to a vote. Members, please cast your vote. Motion carries seven zero. Item number eight. Item number eight report from Financial Management. Recommendation to approve the fiscal year 2015 first departmental and Fund Budget Appropriation Adjustments in accordance with existing City Council policy citywide.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 1634, 1642, 1650, and 1680 North Sheridan Boulevard in West Colfax. Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-C2 and U-RH-3A to U-RX-3 (residential mixed-use), located at 1634, 1642, 1650, and 1680 North Sheridan Boulevard in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-15-21.

DenverCityCouncil_08092021_21-0659

Ten eyes. Counsel build 20 1-523 has passed. All right. We're moving on to our second hearing. Councilmember Black, will you please put Council Bill six, five, nine on the floor for final passage? I move that council bill 20 10659 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. All right. It has been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for council Bill 659 is open. May we have the staff report? And I see we have James here with us. Good evening. James Van Houser with CPD. Right. Are you seeing my presentation? No. Okay. So today we have a requested rezoning at 1634 through 1680 North Sheridan Boulevard. Up. James, we're going to ask you to speak a little bit louder into your mic there. Can do. You. Today we have a proposed rezoning at 1634 through 1680 North Sheridan Boulevard. The request is to go from USC to and you are h382. You are x three. Properties located in Council District one Councilwoman Sandoval's district in the West Colfax neighborhood. The site is approximately 1.11 acres and concurrently contains several one and two storey single and two unit residential buildings. The proposed rezoning to Yurek three allows for residential mixed use development and the applicant intends to propose multi-unit residential development on the site. Existing land use on the subject properties a single unit and two unit residential. Surrounding area includes mix of park single and two unit residential as well as some multi unit residential land uses. This was before the planning board in early June. Planning Board unanimously recommended approval of the rezoning. We've gotten one R.A. comment letter from the Sloan's Lake Citizens Group and five public comment letters from members of the public. Four letters in support and one letter of opposition. Wanted to note briefly the previous action that had taken place on these parcels. There was a previous rezoning effort in 2019 to rezone the properties to UMC and UMC. Three Planning Board at that time voted five zero to recommend approval of that application and City Council voted to deny it 10 to 2 at a public hearing held on nine 1619. I will note that this is a completely new application with a completely new set of applicants and a completely new zoned district being requested. However, I thought that the previous action might be useful context. Existing zoning is U.S. C-2, which is a single unit zoned district that also allows detached ADAS as well as tandem houses and duplexes on certain corner lots as well as the U, r, h3a, which is a real house district. Just adjacent zoning. We have some OSA to the north and Flynn's like park you are H-3 also to the south U.S. two and you are H-3 to the east and across here at End Boulevard in Edgewater and Lakewood. There some are two or three and RMF something. Here's an aerial of the site for existing context of the building forming scale. Review criteria. Start with consistency of adopted plans. The proposed rezoning is consistent with a number of COP Plan 2040 goals as elaborated on in the staff report. Blueprint. Denver The future neighborhood context is urban, which is categorized by small multi-unit, residential and mixed use areas embedded in one and two unit residential areas and low scale multi-unit buildings are generally appropriate in this context. Looking at our future place type is a residential low medium, which sees a mix of low to mid scale multi-unit residential interspersed in single and two unit residential areas and building heights are three stories or less generally. Sheridan Boulevard is a mixed use arterial. 17th is a residential collector and any place to the south is a local or un designated street. Future growth strategy is all other areas of the city. Looking at the West Colfax plan. The land use concept for these parcels is the main street a scale of 2 to 5 storeys as appropriate. Creating a comfortable pedestrian environment is a stated goal of the plan, and a linear orientation to the street is also a stated goal of this type of land use concept. The Framework plan land use recommendations from the West Coal Flex Plan include supporting infill development as well as promoting a range of housing types and end costs at higher densities in strategic locations, including Main Streets, which as on the previous slide, this falls into. The District plan as part of the West Conflicts plan. This is again a main street, specifically the pig and whistle district. With recommendations to rezone to Main Street two and three. Those are old code districts that would translate to EMS five and eight in the current Denver zoning code. Staff finds the application consistent with criteria two and three. Justifying circumstance. The applicant cites change or changing conditions in the neighborhood and cites a few, few specific examples. And staff concurs that the change in changing conditions is an appropriate justifying circumstance. The application is also consistent with the neighborhood context zone, district purpose and intent. And CPD recommends that Council approve application 20 00168 based on finding or review criteria have been met. Staff is available for questions and we also have the applicant here in person. All right. Thank you, James, for the presentation this evening. We have one individual signed up to speak this evening and it's Jesse Perez. And so we're going to go ahead and try to bring Jesse into the queue to speak again. And if for some reason, Jesse, we're not able to hear you, we're going to ask you to log off and log back in, but we're going to go ahead and try it before we ask you. Okay. Good deal. I think we've got you in. Jesse, go ahead and please begin. Yes. Good evening. Members of council, those watching at home when I was just in Paris and I'm representing four black star Exxon Mobil for self-defense positive action for my face also signs as well as the unity party of Colorado and for a long black nose. And I'll be the next mayor in 2023. I'm in favor of this rezoning tonight. I just had a few questions. I wanted to know if there had been a study done, a neighborhood study done. Uh, also, what would the army level be for the housing at this location? From mixed use to residential well with the house in before this. Am I level B for this? And also, if there was a traffic study done this summer to answer those three questions, either the occupant or members of council, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Jesse. That concludes our speakers this evening. Questions from members of Council on Council Bill 659. All right. Seen no questions by members of council this evening. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 659. Council Member Sandoval. Thank you, Madam President. Um, this application before you today, this property was heard a while ago in front of us and voted down and the new owners have done extensive outreach into the community. And I just want to note that the height increase is pretty much it's not that big. The adjacent property to the south, that's where we got the height increase for this property. And one other note to talk about is that along Sheridan I do not have sidewalks on 17th and Sheridan it is a pedestrian path and this redevelopment will allow for sidewalks on Sheridan Boulevard. They are dedicating 16 feet of right away the entire length of the property, the block for a tree line and dedicated sidewalks. I ask my colleagues to support this. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval. And we are. Working on. I know that we had Councilmember Ortega. She had her hand raised. And so we're I'm getting some direction from our legal counsel. I'm going to go ahead and gavel back in and open the public hearing back up. And so we're going to do that so that we can include questions by Councilmember Ortega. All right. We have reopened the public hearing for Council Bill 659. Councilmember Ortega, please go ahead with your questions. Thank you, Madam President. I had lost audio there for a minute. I couldn't hear what was being said, but my questions for specific to the consolidation of the land or the assemblage of I. Am. Just trying to get an idea of how many units can now be built on that site, because that then raises some questions about whether the ingress and egress will be offered Sheridan or whether it's going to be off a 17th Street or maybe even 16th, because both Sheridan and 17th are busy streets. And it depends on whether you can take a left in from 17 to the site or, you know, just how that's going to work. I think it's going to be really important. It may be that the applicant is just looking to rezone for right now and doesn't have any immediate plans to move forward with the construction. But I think just understanding some of that will be really important to ensuring that we don't have accidents along that corridor. That is one of the streets that previous council members from this district have tried to ensure that we've got sidewalks along Sheridan Boulevard because there aren't any and we have a bus stop. And oftentimes you see people with strollers trying to walk their kids on a slanted dirt area that is very unsafe. This is the next block over. But all all of those factors just kind of come into play, particularly with this block as well. So I wanted to just ask those questions. I think maybe some of that can be addressed by our city staff from CPD, but maybe the applicant as well. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega. We're going to go ahead and start out with James and then I believe we have the applicant here. So we'll just ask you to introduce yourself as well. But go ahead, James. Thank you for the questions. Councilman Ortega. Generally, we wouldn't get into site development plans at the rezoning stage. All of the, you know, requirements for egress and ingress have, you know, have to meet our standards and be built to our code provisions. However, I do believe the applicants have submitted in step already in anticipation of this rezoning. So I will defer to the applicant if he'd like to answer some of your specific questions, because I think there are specific answers in this case. Thank you. Hi. Thank you. Consul Mac Yardeni with us. Architecture 4164 Irving Street. Thank you for taking the time tonight to review this. We have, as Amanda stated. Reached out to the neighborhood pretty extensively to understand concerns, desires and mitigate as many of the impacts of the development as we go forward. As stated, we have already submitted our concept step. We wanted to understand further with Dottie and transportation as well. As access points. Throughout the site. We are going to have those meetings here later on Wednesday and we'll have better understandings. We have not performed any traffic studies at this time. However, we have had conversations with both CDOT and transportation about the upcoming improvements that are going to occur along both Sheridan and 17th, trying to make sure that we work with. The affected ingress and egress for the site to the question of total number. Of units under the new zoning, we have currently planned for 60 units and looking at parking that at a 0.75.8 ratio to mitigate any off site parking. The price point that we have tried. To. Identify going back to the previous question has really been to build a smaller product to fill in that missing metal by not building that concrete podium and keeping it a surface parking, we're able to build these. At a. Lower cost and therefore offer them to the community at a lower cost. Those numbers are still to be determined as we go through the construction process. And then, as Amanda stated, reconstruction of the entire length of Sheridan Boulevard with a future eight foot tree line and an eight foot sidewalk that is multi-modal, serving that connection between the Colfax corridor and the park, really trying to create that gateway for Denver. Any other questions? All right. Thank you. We're going to go ahead, Councilwoman. Take care of your fist. A follow up, clarifying question on whether or not that was intended to be a for sale product or a rental project. It's currently in the for sale or sorry for rent. Or rent a rental car. Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you, Madam Chair. All right. Great. Thank you. And thank you, Councilmember Ortega. And seeing that, we wrapped up the questions by members of council. The public hearing is closed and we've had comments by Councilmember Sandoval. I want to give it a moment if there's any additional comments by members of council. CNN. I'll go ahead and chime in that I do believe this meets the rezoning criteria and will be supporting it this evening as well. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 659. Sandoval. I swear, I. Torres I. Black I. Flynn. I. Hynes. Hi Cashman. I can each. I. Take it. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. Ten Eyes. Ten Eyes Cancer build 20 1-659 has passed our third public hearing tonight. We're on to it. Councilmember Black, will you please put Council Bill 7 to 0 on the floor for final passage?

Recommendation to adopt Specifications No. RFP PW16-058 and award a contract to CycleHop, LLC, of Santa Monica, CA, for the operation of the Bike Share Program, at no cost to the City for period of five years, from March 9, 2016 to March 8, 2021, with the option to renew for two additional five-year periods; and authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to enter into the agreement, including any necessary amendments thereto regarding the terms of the agreement and scope of services. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_03082016_16-0234

Thank you. Members, cast your vote. Motion carries. Thank you. Item 19 Report from Public Works and Financial Management Recommendation to award a contract to Cycle Hub for the operation of the Bikeshare program at no cost to the city for a period of five years citywide. Is there a staff report? Yes, there is a staff report. This is a very, very, very exciting night for our community. You might recall we've worked with a couple bike vendors over the past three or four years to to reach where we're at tonight, remember, Bike Nation and then next bike. And now we're working with Cycle Hop. So I can't say enough about our mobility team and moving this forward to get what they're going to present tonight. So. Nate Baird, our mobility coordinator, is going to make the presentation along with our interim public works director, Craig Beck. And I see our traffic engineer Eric Wickstrom in the audience as well, who was very instrumental in this as well. Nate. Good evening, Mayor. Members of city council. I'm going to start this off. This is a fun one that we get to bring to you tonight. I hope you can look behind you. You can see an example of one of the bikeshare bikes that will be deployed here out in our community. You want to bring it in the middle? Yeah, that would that would be. Good and be good. Yeah. So we're real excited to be able to bring this item forward to you this evening. It's it's almost a rite of passage for a community to be able to implement a bike share program. And I think working together with Cycle Hop, who's currently doing this in many cities and in close to us, Santa monica, that we're going to do a rollout and a celebration on Thursday. And we're hoping people can join the mayor and members of the council to announce bike share officially on Thursday. We will start with an original deployment of roughly ten kiosks and then we will roll the program out throughout the city. So I'd like Nate to spend a moment to go through some of the contract elements and the bike share program as a whole. By the way, as Nate comes down, I don't know what that says, that Nate felt he had to lock the bike here in the city council. The red light is on just in case. When it's unlike, you know, when it's unlocked, the lights are running. Good evening, Mayor and city council. As has been said, it's been a little bit of a long road. For us with bike share, but we're very excited to work with Cycle Hop now. We really believe they are the right partner and the timing is right now to really move forward. We've got the right operating model, the model that we wanted all along, no cost to the city. Um, we purchased the equipment with social bicycles, a really great equipment manufacturer. Um, cycle hop has a lot of experience. With this equipment. They're deployed at beach cities across Southern California. They're working more and more with a number of cities regionally. So they're just a really good fit for us. They also have experience with this no cost. Model in Ottawa and Phenix. So we think they'll be very successful with that model here that we've been looking for. Um, we're very happy with the rates that they're proposing. It's affordable for both tourists and locals, and we're excited to see them start. Installing very soon. Vice presidents like to point out. I see Al Crawford in the audience. So Al was our previous mobility bike coordinator, so he spent a portion of his life on this program as well. So I think one more thing that I would like to add just as information, we will be having valet stations for our bikeshare program at Beach Streets, which is coming up here on the 19th. So we hope that councilmembers will be available for that and maybe actually ride one of the bike share programs and then share with your community what a great experience it was. Thank you. Thank you both Mr. Beck and Mr. Baird. This is exciting. I. I look at Allen Crawford. This is a long time coming and I think we finally landed in a place that's great. We are working with a reputable vendor, so I want to thank staff for your tenacity in making sure that our city has a program that we can be proud of and anesthetics alone. I do have to say it's a beautiful bike. Alan I have seen many bikes across the world for bike share other than maybe the red ones in France. They're not very attractive. They look clunky. They they're meant to be clunky because you're not supposed to drive off right off in them and then never come back. But this is very attractive and it's blue, so it's keeping with our coastal feel. So if you had anything to do with the esthetics. Mr. BACK Which I'm sure you did. Thank you. As you know, we don't do ugly in the city of Long Beach. We don't. Thank you. And Alan personally thank you for getting us started and keeping us on track with our bicycle mobility plan and all things bicycle mobility related. We are ticking off our our deliverables one at a time. And this is a really big one. So thank you for that. Councilmember Gonzalez. I can't believe the day has come. This is really wonderful. I know we've been talking about this for a long, long time. You know, since I've been here. And it's it's really wonderful that now we have a wonderful event that will be coming to downtown and we get to showcase these bikes. And I know that so many residents and tourists in downtown will be taking advantage of these opportunities. And I want to thank Public Works and Bike Long Beach and Allen for being here and just all of the hard work. I remember as a field deputy writing this by the bikes that we used to have, it were not very esthetically pleasing to the eye, but they got me around and I got to meet constituents and it was a really cool way to just get around town and showcase what we do here at the city. But doing this in this fashion is so much better and I look forward to what this will bring for for our downtown. Thank you. Councilman Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I'm really excited about this this program as well. I was able to so me and my wife on a trip to another city got a chance to try them out. We otherwise would not have been riding bikes that day. It wasn't in our plan. But when we saw that thing, we use that as a means to transit, you know, to move around instead of catching a cab or an Uber. And literally, we rode on those bikes all day. A very, very convenient program. So the first question is, are we going to have an app? Yes. Yes. Good. And then. And then my next question is probably going to be a really obvious question, because I've asked every time this has come to council, so do I. Do I have to ask Tom? I'll leave this to Nate. But we the first ten stations will be in the downtown. There are the same ten stations that we've reviewed for the past three years. But cycle hop is committed to us that they want to get up and operating with all 50 kiosks as soon as possible to get in all 52 square miles of the city. So we're anxiously awaiting that. So, like within a year? Easily within a year. Okay. Sounds good. Thanks. Councilmember Richardson. I'm older, so I have to get hours in the downtown first. I'm going to I'm going to cite my age. Speed it up. Councilwoman Price. Thank you. I'm very excited about this and I can't wait until we have locations in the third, so I encourage you to move the process along. I will be using one of these bikes at beach streets because my bike got stolen on Second Street a couple of weeks ago and so I have not purchased a new bike yet, so I'm glad that these will be available, hopefully on the eastern side of Broadway so that I don't have to walk too far to get one. But my entire family is excited about the event and we think I use this program in D.C. when I was there recently and found it to be a completely wonderful asset to have as a visitor. And I think I think this is going to be tremendous, tremendous opportunity for our city. So I thank my council colleagues who have been working on this for years. And I think staff and I have to say, Nate is such a pleasure to work with. He's such just a positive face when it comes to mobility. And I'm very glad that he's in our city. I'm excited about this project. Thank you. And your great to Craig. Thank you. Councilman Austin. I'd just also like to welcome my support. This is a great day that we are now finally awarding a contract and moving forward with this great resource for our residents and tourists here in the city. I too am looking forward to having stations in my district as we are currently as a city investing in and bike infrastructure throughout the city. Um, you know, we've, we've certainly done and done a lot of great work in the eight district to connect the city through to our bike infrastructure. It would be very important to make sure that we, these, these, these resources are are spread throughout the city. And so I'd like to lend my support, but I also echo Councilmember Richardson's sentiment and comments that, you know, we didn't need to make sure we speed them up and make sure that, you know, the downtown is a is a wonderful place to explore. But, you know, we want to make sure that everybody has makes their way uptown as well. So thank you. Vice Mayor. I do want to highlight another gentleman that's been involved not only with Charlie Gandy, with Alan. With Nate, it's Tony Cruise or Bike Ambassador. So Tony's here as well. I'm just going to a couple comments. Just I mean, I see Alan and Tony, of course, Nate Craig. I think about folks like Mark who also believe in this program. I've actually ridden this this actual bike at the last beach streets. Matthew and I took advantage and tested the bikes out. And they're fantastic bikes. They park easy. People are going to love this experience, using this experience all across the city. I just want to also add that staff is very aware of of my interest and I think of everyone's interest to include our university and colleges as part of this network. And I think one of the one of the first connections beyond downtown is going to be the connection to Cal State, Long Beach, and the connection to Long Beach City College. It's incredibly important that our students have access and really create these incredible corridors to and from our connecting point. And so I know that Cal State Long Beach is already in conversations with the city. It's very exciting and a lot of Beach City College, both campuses as well, are interested and they're just natural places for these connections. And so it's a very exciting program. I remember it seems like years ago, C.J., when you and I jumped on one of these to kick off this program, we rode around City Hall together and it's been a long time. And so I'm really glad that I think I bug pad about this monthly at least weekly. Okay so I'm glad it's I'm glad it's here. So with that members, please can you guys really do public comment? You did. Did you do public comment yet? Nope. Please come forward. Ellen Crawford, bikeable communities. This is a huge step forward for the city. It really is. But we talk. About how long it's taken. I give the city staff, I give Pat and. I really give Dr. Lowenthal huge credit. For getting us where we. Are today. We would not. Be here without that vision. We have a sign out here on city hall that says the most bike. Friendly city in America. And we look at that every day. We're going, no, we're not. But this takes us an enormous. Step toward getting toward that. Every world class. Bike city around the world has bike share. And now we will, too. And what I'm really, really proud of is what Nate has done with bringing cycle hop. What a contrast to our. Earlier conversation around recycling. Nate has selected the best vendor. For us in the U.S.. Because you'll have to talk to Nate and he can explain why this is different from the New York model. It's different from the Seattle. From the D.C. model. It allows you to take bikes, leave them, get them. It's awesome. So again, Nate, thank you very much. Pat in particular, Suja. Thank you guys very, very much for everything you've. Done for the. City. Thank you. Any other public comment? Mr. Good you can forward. Very good who Kirk has addressed. I do think it's a great program. A couple of cautionary notes. I can't imagine that many people wanting to put it on one of our busses, the bike racks, and go a distance and so forth. But if so, I'd check the size of that to make sure that it doesn't encumber the bike rack because a lot of people put a bike. On the bus, on the bike rack that has a basket on it that precludes somebody going next to it and so forth. I suggest maybe it. Working with hotels in addition to the places you listed as places that would be a good place to have a business, bike station and so forth. Obviously, the hotels downtown can hit our bikes, you know, the transit area or I'm sure they're going to be set up down there. The one overriding concern that I had, and that's particularly with people in Long Beach, is riding the bike should not be a fashion statement. You're not going off to Nottingham Hill to do, you know, for a fashion statement. It's a transportation bill. The purpose of it is to get you from point A to point B and as responsibly as you would in a car. So you're not waving around, hey, look, I'm riding a bike. I'm socially conscious. You know, you get from point A to point B as fast as you can and be mindful of the traffic behind you in terms of automobiles and busses and so forth. And I see that as becoming a problem. So we've got to get inside of that and put the foot on the neck of that as soon as possible start. So if it's becomes the first time we see that, I don't see this much of a problem because I can't see any people other than tourists or maybe some kids of university people wanting to ride that bike. They're more they're faster bikes and easier to use, I think, in this one. But for the purpose for which it's, you know, to cater to tourist, fine. Okay. Is there any other public comment, Mr. Cruz? Even the mayor council. I know it's taken a long time for all of us to finally see this day. But I really feel that the time has benefited all of us because we have a it's a beautiful bike, as council Mary Alonzo was saying, and it's a very sturdy bike as well. And, you know, bike share has probably been going on, I would say, a total of ten years. And there's been many iterations of the bike in the program and I think it's so refined now that we are actually getting the cream of the crop in terms of the actual product and then the service here as well. And I want to thank all of you guys for hanging in there, supporting, you know, the vision. I think it's really a vision that, you know, that was brought to this community. And we have all kind of gotten behind and started to adopt and have completely adopted. And, you know, I think it's going to really benefit our community moving forward as well. And as a bike ambassador for the city, you know, I do get asked quite a bit. I have friends that live in Santa monica. They've got bike share, you know, plenty of friends around the nation. And they keep asking me, when is Long Beach going to get bike share? You know, you guys want to be the most bike friendly city. So now I get the opportunity to tell them that it's here. And, you know, I'm really looking forward to that. So thank you all very much. Thank you. See no other public comment. Members, please go and cast your votes. Motion carries.

Recommendation to Receive an Update to the July 23, 2013 Report on the City’s Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) Liabilities (City Manager 2110)

AlamedaCC_04072015_2015-1503

Second. Any discussion? A call the vote. All those in favor. I oppose none. One recusal member de saag. And that completes the consent calendar. So now we're on the regular agenda items. I have a recommendation for our sixth recommendation. Receive an update to the July 23rd, 2013 report on the city's other post-employment benefit liability. Irma. Yes. It's. Thank you very much, Madame Mayor. Council members. Tonight's report is in anticipation. Of some upcoming. Votes that the council may be taking with respect to addressing the city's long term liability crunch in the area of post-employment benefits. What we wanted to do tonight as staff is to give context and to help the public understand what exactly is meant when we talk about OPEB or other post-employment benefits. It is an issue that is somewhat complicated but can be pretty easily understood once it's explained. It is also a huge headache for cities throughout the country, especially in California. You can thank assistant city manager and soon to be acting city manager. Warmer than for the photo of George Washington on the dollar bill to represent the struggle that cities face. I'm glad she did that. I'm a big fan of Presidents Day merely because I love commercials where Abraham Lincoln and George Washington are selling cars or wrapping or engaged in, you know, beer pong. So this is probably the most important issue that the city faces over which it has control. Our goal tonight is to demystify OPEB for the public. Next slide, please. So what is the difference between Purrs and OPEB? In a nutshell, hers is your pension. OPEB is what's called a retiree medical. Now with PERS. When an employee retires, they get the number of years of service. Let's say, just for argument's sake, 25 years of service times. Some factor. Some percentage. It used to be that the percentage for most employees was 2%. About 14 or 15 years ago, the legislature decided after the dot com boom that the PERS fund had done so well that. It would make a lot of sense to bump pensions up and bump the factor up from 2% to 3%. That was a huge. Huge. Impact from an actuarial perspective on what cities would have to pay eventually and where we sit today with premiums. I want to note that public safety employees throughout the state receive 3% at 50. That means for every year of service, they get 3%. If they work 25 years, they'll get 75% of their what's called pensionable number, which is usually the top year of salary. And they're able to retire at 50 years of age. At the same time that those formula were changed from 2%, 2.5% to 3%. The retirement date changed from 55 to 50. So look at it this way. You went from 2% to 3%. That's a 50% increase in value in the pension. Plus you get to retire five years earlier. So five additional years of liability. This has had a terrible impact on cities throughout California and for Alameda. Now. One point you should make because there's a lot of confusion about this, is that employees who receive a person's retirement are not allowed to draw Social Security. So it is in lieu of. But it is a much more expensive program for the city itself. So that's the pension side. That's PERS I'm not going to address PERS tonight. Some of us who are involved in state level politics at the time when this happened, including me, I was president of the League of California Cities at the time, spoke at the time and said and spoke out publicly and said this change in the formula was non-sustainable. We did not prevail. You can draw your own conclusions about why, but we are where we are now. So what's the difference between person OPEB? Well, OPEB is not a pension. Hers is run by a state agency. Alameda, like most cities, contracts with powers to operate the pension program. Some cities exist in risk pools. Others just exist in the main prize pool. In 2013, a bill was passed called Peprah. Pepper says that for new employees, there is now what's called classic purrs and new purrs. And for those who are employees, classic purrs is like classic coke. And new purrs is like new coke. New purrs says that public safety employees, police, fire, sheriffs, etc. all get instead of 3% a year, they get 2.7% a year. That sounds small. It's not. It's a 10% reduction. But more importantly, instead of being able to retire at 50, these new employees have to retire at 57. So there's seven more years of contribution and seven fewer years of payout. As for miscellaneous employees nonpublic safety, they no longer can retire at 55. They are now retiring at 62. The main point about this and why I wanted to talk about Perce is that because of the losses in the stock market, both in the wake of the dot com boom and in the wake of the housing boom. PERS did not hit its investment return targets in the next six years. And you will see this when the city does its presentation on our budget for the next five years. Our premium rate, the amount we have to pay to PERS to fund these pension benefits is going to rise pretty dramatically. It has already risen pretty dramatically. The city cannot control the purse rate. What the city can however, exercise some modicum of control over is the retiree medical benefit, the so-called OPEB. And that's what I want to speak about tonight. Now, before we do that, let's take a look real quickly at the increase in prices rates, because this is the challenge that most cities and Alameda will face in the coming years. Right now, the fiscal year we are in, we are at the tail end of 1415. So if you're looking at this chart, it's the third bar from the left. Our premium. What we pay to two in Sacramento is for every dollar in public safety salary, we pay $0.53 on a dollar to PERS to fund the pension benefit . Our employees pay 13 of those $0.53, which makes them among the highest in the region. And for those who generally believe that we should confront the unions and, you know, jam down the number that they're supposed to get and make them pay more. I want to let you know that one of the consequences of PEP brought the Pension Reform Act is that state law says you cannot impose more than $0.12 on the dollar. We get more than that because we bargained for it. Right now, the city pays $0.40 on the dollar. Employees pay 13 for a total of 53. Look ahead. This is what's called purrs, smoothing the purrs smoothing process to try to catch up for the so-called lost decade of investment returns that I mentioned earlier. We'll raise our premium up to $0.65 on the dollar. Given our contracts with our police and firefighters. They will be paying $0.15 per dollar. We will be paying 50 per dollar. I want to note there is a, as I said, no way to impose more than 12 under state law and B, the $0.15 that our employees will be paying. No one is paying more in the Bay Area. Some people from time to time ask, why can't you just do what San Jose does? Well, here's why. San Jose has its own pension fund. It's not part of PERS. It's completely different situation. So we're facing an increase from $0.40 on the dollar five years out to $0.50 on the dollar. That is going to put a real strain on our ability to provide services. And so it's critical because these costs are not controlled by the city. It is critical that we bring our OPEB costs, the retiree medical costs under control in the next few years. Now I want to talk about what is open. Our miscellaneous employees, meaning the nonpublic safety employees. When they retire, they get $122 a month. That's the end of their benefit. Public safety employees, though, depending on their hire date. If they're hired before June 2011, they get full medical and dental health care through retirement. For them and for their spouse, that's if you're before June 2011. By contract and by agreement between the management of Alameda and our bargaining units. Those employees who were hired after June 2011 do not receive the benefit for spouses. It's a single party coverage, not a family coverage. But is it still full coverage? It's full coverage, but it's it's one party. And it does make it over time as we phase in these new employees. That provides us quite a bit of relief. Now. How are course determined. What do we pay for OPEB? What is our total bill? How do we get ahead of this and what do we face in the future as more people retire? Well. This chart shows you that. I want you to look at the fourth word. The fourth column down is pay as you go. Pay as you go is the amount that the city has to pay every year to pay the medical premiums for the existing retirees. Now. I read blogs. I look at opinion pieces. There's a lot of people who believe that the city can just unilaterally change the benefit to retirees. In fact, they can't. The city did try to do this about six years ago. And the retired police officers brought in arbitration against the city and one and one in every regard and ended up the city ended up paying for their lawyers as well. You can't touch the existing retirees. What you can do, however, is negotiate with the existing employees who will be retiring at different rates in the coming years. Right now, in fiscal year 1415, the year we're in now, the city is paying $2.7 million a year for the medical premiums of the retired police and firefighters as more and more retire and as people live longer. That number is going to go up. As you can see, if we do nothing. The number will go up such that by fiscal 1920, which is only five years away, that 2.7 million is going to go up to 4.2 million. At the same time, remember I showed you earlier how the PERS numbers are going up. We cannot absorb both of them at the same time. It's not possible. We have to come up with a program that will provide us relief in this field because we can't do anything about the PERS field. Now, I want to give you some definitions because you see some terms up there. You see the term normal cost, you see the usual amortization. Here's what normal cost is. This is the cost of all benefits earned by current and active employees. In other words, this is what we should be putting away today and putting into investments into safe, safe return vehicles in order to pay this bill in the future. We're not doing it. Nearly no cities do it. Some do, but very few. In fact, Alameda at least has paid it's pay as you go as it came. Do some cities, including the one I live in that I used to work in, borrowed over the past 15 years just to make their ongoing payments. So they have compounded their problem such that it's now a problem that's in the billions of dollars rather than millions. The next definition I want to show you is unfunded, actuarial accrued. Oops. Oh, thank you. No, go back. There it is. Okay. This is the cost to fund the benefits that should that have already been earned. And should have been funded in the past. The most important point, if you have one take away about all of these benefits, retirement and retiree medical, is that this is a problem that didn't start just 15 years ago when the formulas changed. This is a problem that started in the immediate postwar when governments at all levels began giving out pensions and post-employment benefits without putting any money aside to fund them whatsoever. It's been going on for more than 60 years. We are now in such a fix that it will take, I believe, 15 to 20 years to fix the problem. That's the bad news. The good news is, if we're diligent and strategic, it can be fixed. Alameda, at least unlike some of its neighbors, is in a position to fix this problem. So again, you shall. Is how much we should have been putting away. And normal cost is how much we should be putting away today. When you put them together. It's something called the annual required contribution. This is the combination of normal cost. Again, normal cost is what we should be putting away now for the people who are working for us now. And the fuel, which is what we should have been doing in the past. When you put it together. The the actuaries call it the annual required contribution. This is the amount we should be putting aside annually to be whole. Now. Let's go back to the numbers now that we've talked about it. This means that what? The city. Is paying in PAYGO comes off of the so-called arc. We are underfunded in 1415. If we were going to be 100% funded, that we didn't have a big problem in the future. We should be paying $6.3 million. You can see by the late where the laser pointer is, we should be doing that. Instead, all we're doing is $2.7 million. And you can see the problem gets larger. It gets away from us every year. Next slide. Now, how do we come up with these numbers? We assume that every year medical premiums are going to go up 8%. Now, last year, the medical premium went up less than 3%. The indication is that this year the medical premium will go up less than 3%. So why are we picking such a high number? Doesn't that make our problem look bigger than it actually is? The reason we're picking the bigger number is because for the last 20 years, we have repeatedly had years in which medical premiums and you know this, if you pay your own health care, medical premiums have gone up eight, nine, sometimes as much as 12 and 14% a year. We had one good year. We think we have another one coming. We don't know that that's a real lasting trend or whether it's just a blip. So consequently, we're using a pretty conservative number by using the 8%. All of the financial analysts believe that even if you could, you should not fund 100% of your liability because you're using assumptions like this 8% and that the most prudent thing to do is to fund at about 75 or 80%. Of course, we're not remotely close to that. Let us show you where we are. Work. Oh, there it is. Okay, so what would it look like if we only had to fund 75% of the benefit for next year? 1516? Well, at 100%, we would be underfunded by 6.7. At 75%, we'd still be underfunded by $4.3 million. So, you know, you can play with the numbers, but the numbers are still very bad. But we felt it was important to show you what the most common standard is, which is 75 to 80%. Okay. Next one. So to look at it as a pie chart. With 100% funding. The pay go is 31% of the pie. That's what, in other words, PAYGO is what we're actually paying today. What we predict we're going to pay in the next fiscal year. The blue area is what we should be paying so that we don't have a bill in the future that we can't meet. The pie chart on the right shows you. If you go 75%, we're still more than 50% underfunded for what we ought to be doing. Next. The obligation as it stands today is about $91 million. That we need to. Now, we don't need to pay $91 million today, but it's $91 million over the next 30 years. And this is just OPEB. This is just OPEB. This is not right now. All we're talking about now. That's right, Madam Mayor. Thank you. This is just OPEB. This is not the pensions. This is why we have to get this under control. Police represent a little more than $44 million of our obligation. Fire represents about 39 million. And everybody else who's not in public safety represents seven but seven and a half million dollars. The city's total unfunded liability is just a little over $91 million. Next slide. What has been done so far. What's been done so far was at long last, in January of 2014, the city decided we better at least get started. With the pension trust. So we created an OPEB trust that currently has about $2 million in it to try to prefund some of this. I mentioned earlier there's no spousal coverage as of June 2011. On the 14th of this month, we are going to publish for the public's review and for vote by the Council on April 29 A Proposal. It is a new five year contract with all of our police and fire unions. That will include solutions for the OPEB trust. It will fashion a trust that will actually be able to provide us with years of breathing room and will save the city tens of millions of dollars. I want to be clear as I was in my discussions with our Treasurer and auditor yesterday about this. This is not a solution that solves the problem forever. It doesn't solve it for 30 years. It solves it in the near term to allow us the time without borrowing, without making the situation worse. It is a net seriously positive impact. It allows us the time to cope with the OPEB. A Pardon me? The purse, the pension rates going up. Anything else? So with that council, Madame Mayor, I'd be happy to answer any questions about the context of OPEB. There will be much more discussion in this month. Again, the 29th is the meeting and the 14th under the Sunshine Law. 15 days prior to the vote on any labor contract, the public must have access to the contract and all related materials, and we will publish all of those no later than Tuesday, the 14th. And with that, I thank you, council members for your attention and would be happy to answer any questions you may have, if I can. And we do have two speakers from the Public Council. Did you want to ask questions first? If. Member Ashcraft. Thank you. Thank you for that report, Mr. City Manager, on page one of the staff report now page three talking about the unfunded actuarial accrued liability. And in Almeida's case, the fuel is 91.2 million as of the last actuarial valuation done in January January one, 2013. Do we do these evaluations annually? Every two years. Every two years. Okay. So we're not up for what we are. So we are. We're in the process of doing one right now. Okay. And will we have those numbers by the time we can. Actually have Doug Pryor here from and Associates, our actuary? Could you come to the microphone? The question is this years actuary, when do we expect it? Yeah, we're we're still in the process of collecting the data. So we're. Typically 4 to 6 weeks off from having. Kind of preliminary results to. Present to staff. So just to follow up, then, by the time we come back on the 29th to vote on the contract provisions, we won't have that information. You don't think 4 to 6 weeks from now or are you in the midst of that. Process where we we're still collecting the data from the city, so we don't have everything yet to proceed with our. Analysis, but. In the order of magnitude of changes are not going to be that. I mean. Right. We're talking billion. Okay. 30 years to 43 million order of magnitude won't change. All right. Okay. Um. And. Uh. Okay. The others can wait till. After member day. So just to clarify in question for a staff, city manager or assistant city manager. Now, when we're talking about the unfunded liability of $91.2 million for the OPEB side, now that unfunded liability, broadly speaking, can be distributed in two ways. One for. People who are part of it is attributable to people who are right now retired. They're no longer working. And part of it is attributable to people who are working right now in city hall. But we need to make plans for them in the future. So. That's correct. It's the whole number. Thank you. Vice Mayor and just for the public. Mr. City Manager. If you can verify the assumptions on. The solution, as well as the liabilities, is projecting an 8% increase in health costs a year? That's correct. And also, it assumes that it's the number of employees that we have now as active no more. Correct? That is correct. So what it assumes we've had persistent vacancies, particularly in the police department. This assumes that we are continuing to budget for full staffing. But not increasing or decreasing. Now, if you increase or decrease, you change the numbers. And the same with the health or the percentage of increase in health care, correct? Well, the percentage, yeah. I mean, it'll be 8%. Whether you have 100 employees or 120, it's going to be 8% per year. But those are two variables. What I'm. Saying. Oh, yes, right. Absolutely. But but it is important to know that the assumption is that there will not be an increase in the size of these forces and there's no decrease in the. So it's the assumption is we are where we are and we will be there for the next, you know, 5 to 10 years minimum number. So a thank you. And I want to underscore that point so that people understand that while the what's in front of us right now is about looking out at and years out, 5 to 10 years out, and that's just a proposal stage. Let me emphasize, to the extent that it's a good program and the possibility of it going beyond ten years is strong, in which case it is important to us to emphasize and reemphasize that the mechanics of the preliminary idea are such that we have certain assumptions with regard to the number of workers. And so to the extent that you change those assumptions, you could potentially then change, you know, all the modeling that we're doing in terms of how much money that we think we need to set aside in the future or now. So that's an important point. And I want to further put the context as to why that's an important point, is because, you know, there are certain metrics with regard to staffing levels, how many fire people you need, how many police people you need, how many parks people you need, and where we are with regard to those benchmarks , again, a guess which one says, you know, okay, this is a satisfactory number of police per 10,000 residents or this is a satisfactory number of parks and park workers per 10,000 residents. Now where we are with regard to those benchmarks. When we move forward with with the proposal that we have in hand, we're going to be sticking to our law employee numbers because they help drive our understanding of how we're going to deal with the OPEB issue in the long term. May I? May I? Yes. Yeah. From a management perspective, one of the problems that has happened over the years with local government, with all levels of government, is too often when it's budget time. A body looks at saying, adding, let's say, you know, the argument is to add and they're going to add another policeman or police, police officer and they say, okay, well, the police officer is going to cost. An extra $100,000 in salary and benefits, but no one looks set. It's also going to increase the premium for the pension in the future, and it's also going to increase the health care in the future. And so it becomes important for this government to follow on what Councilmember De Saag was saying. It becomes important that if you're going to handle something like this over the years, to really manage it, to protect the service level of the city which is valuable and should be protected. You have to look at the full cost of what is happening in every decision. And I fear that in most levels, particularly of local government, that doesn't happen. Thank you. I have questions. You know, so this is about OPEB. Do we have the dollar amount for the unfunded PERS? Will we see that? We don't. We don't. We have presented it before, but we don't have it here tonight. When you say unfunded. It's yeah, it's it's so it's challenging because it's not unfunded. It's we know what, what our. What the bill is. Yeah, we know the bill and we know we have indications from PERS. Based on what you saw, that goes up to 65% I think misinformed em actually has the dollar numbers for PERS. With her. So when this comes back, that's one of the numbers I'll be looking for, not just the percentages, but dollars for the pub. And it's not just for an oral presentation. I really like this included in writing so that the public can has the opportunity to review it in advance and I want it to go over. So there are some slides that came up here today that weren't in the packet. So it could all those be added so that, you know, the public can have all of the slides. So everything we've prepared for tonight. Will be presented in the package that is presented to the public on the 14th as well. All right. Will be the 15 days. But if these can be added so that the people can look at these right away. That'd be great. So we get a head start on trying to figure this out. That'd be great. Yeah, we have no problem putting them on the website, but they will be packaged. Everything will be packaged again for the 14th. So someone picking up the package will have all of the data, some of which you've seen in closed session as we were going through, but that we couldn't disclose until tonight. Right. But I really want the public to be brought along. So I want to go over the dates, because if I have this correct, we're talking about a date, April 29th, which is not our regular. Is that April 29th? It's it's a budget hearing because this impacts the budget. All right. So I want to make sure the audience is aware when this comes back. It will not be on a regular Tuesday council night meeting. It'll be on a special meeting as part of the budget that was added. And then in regards to so I appreciate the comments in regards to the number of employees. How does overtime pay impact pensions and our contribution? Is it based on? It's actually based on what the employees earn, including overtime pay. Correct. So certain. Yeah. I mean, so again, we're talking about OPEB, which is not does not affect overtime. OPEB overtime does not affect other post-employment benefits. So I just want to make sure that we're clear this presentation's about health care into retirement. The question that you're asking, Madame Mayor, is about overtime and how that affects retirement. The pension, there's a very small portion of our overtime that is actually factored into the retirement. But generally speaking, overtime is not what we call personal. It's not counted toward there per service. There is a small portion of overtime in the fire department that is planned that because of their work schedule, they know that they're going to have overtime. Every work schedule that is pensionable, but the majority of overtime is not counted toward a pension. But if I may, can I just follow on a little bit? Thank you. This is an important this is an important point, because everybody who vests once they vest in their post employment, medical care, benefit, everybody gets the same thing. Pension. Everybody gets something different depending on their years of service and when they were hired. The retiree medical benefit is flat. It's the same for everybody. So it wouldn't be impacted by what rank you retired at or what your salary was. Question for Mr. Russo through the chair, can you just explain when you said when everyone vests with what are you what are you talking about there? If you're a police officer or a firefighter, you can't come here, work for a year and get this benefit. You have to work a certain number of years, which eludes me at this moment. How many years it is, Miss Warm Adams, you know. It changes. It changes on when you were hired. You were hired, right? There's like four different versions, right? The current vesting is ten years. So if you're hired today, you need ten years in order to get these benefits. Okay. And then I want to discuss at some point the scheduling of when this is going to be approved. I don't think it's appropriate to approve a contract at the special meeting. I think it's important that it be on a regularly scheduled meeting, which is when our public is used to being here. I'm very concerned about people thinking that we're pushing it through. So I would prefer that that be set either really be the next regularly scheduled meeting. Well, Madam Mayor, we can't do that because the Sunshine Law requires us to give 15 days notice in the next regularly scheduled meeting is 14 days from today. Or then the next regularly scheduled meeting after that, as opposed to putting it on a special meeting. Like the one to the council to discuss. So I think I would like us to discuss the impact because this has been a concern that I think we've all heard. So I would like counsel feedback. I didn't realize that we were talking about doing it on a special meeting, and I think the council would like council feedback on that. I appreciate that. Question for the city attorney. So anything in our charter and that prohibits us from having an action item like this on a special meeting? No, there does not. You you could vote on the contract on the 29th if the next the next regular scheduled meeting would be on May five. And and I take it there are ways that we can publicize the fact that this item will be coming before this meeting. STAFF Yes. I mean, that's part of what the 15 day and advance notice will be about. It will be on it will be in the newspaper, it will be on the website, there will be notices about it. And if I recall correctly, all of those handouts that we were given in closed session this evening that were now appear to be released to the public, that'll be part of the packet that is released on the 14th of this month. That's correct. Any other council comments? So do we need a motion to have this item come back on that date? Is it? I mean, who sets that calendar? Well, I understood that council gave direction, approving it, and took a vote to that effect in executive session tonight, which is why I'm able to discuss that it's happening. For that specific date? Yes, ma'am. Yeah, I think we could. We can kind of control the narrative if if we sit up here and we say this is being pushed through, even though there's 22 days notice and it's the one of the top two biggest issues facing the city council. You know, then people are going to think that a bit of we do the responsible thing and don't push that narrative, then I don't think there's going to be a lot of people saying that we're trying to push this. So I'm going to say I think it is the responsible thing to have it on a regularly scheduled meeting. Contrary to you suggesting that. But my point. What are we've already decided. So that's is that a motion you're making at a mere. Point of order? I thought we we've already decided that in closed session. Oh, that's so. So, so it wasn't so. We did. I got out on it. Right. So did. Yes, you could vote to reconsider, but since you didn't vote yes, then I don't know why. We're I think it's very important that it be made clear to the public that we're talking about having a special meeting. I don't think that that was shared as part of the vote that we were discussing. A special meeting. I take I have I have to say, Madam Mayor, we did say it was happening at the special meeting of the 29th, which was a budget meeting. And the reason it was being placed with the budget meeting is because of the impacts of the of the proposal have to be considered as part of the budget. We had that conversation in executive session just a couple of hours ago. So I don't have the verbatim of the vote, but I'm fine with that. I appreciate that we do have two speakers, so I'm going to call the speakers at this point. We have Kurt Peterson and then Jeff del Bono. Make one other point, please, because it's come up in this discussion if the council will permit. So. I want to be clear. The term pushed through is problematic. There was. A task force to look at OPEB that was seated in 2012 that included members of Labor, the city's treasurer, the city's auditor, investment bankers, community members, actuaries to look at how might we solve this problem. In 2013, I made a report to the Council about OPEB and about the problems with OPEB. This has been discussed for nearly four years now. And so I just want to be clear that while there are legitimate differences of opinion about putting this before special meeting or putting this in a regular meeting, I don't share that concern, but because I think it's part of the budget. But and I do recall when I first got here in 2011 that some critics of going forward with a contract for police and fire said, how can you do this as not part of the budget? So we're doing it as part of the budget this time. I just want to be clear. This has been nearly four years in the making. And so to the extent there's any suggestion that this is being frog marched through the process, I. It really isn't. I think it's irresponsible to say that it is. I'm not prepared to use that term. If I were mayor, vice mayor. And I think just to stick to the point, terrorists. The public is going to see on the 14th. The numbers and a proposal that goes with those numbers and that goes with this this general overview plan the council in between and this is another thing we discussed is going to individually avail themselves if they so choose. And I think we all better do this and meet with the assistant city manager and go step by step through the contract. It's going to be presented so that we understand what stays the same, what's being changed, and then how it applies to this this proposal that we all heard tonight, and I think we have a meeting in between now and the 29th where we could call the question back and say, we're not satisfied. We need to move the target back up, but we better have a reason for that. And I think we're all going to study it. So I'd like just to keep this focused on we've got a program that's not going to solve it but is going to reduce our liability. We've got potential for a contract that implements that. We haven't seen that yet. I think I'd like to see it. I'd like the public to see it, and I urge everybody to look at it all. Your council member email your council member, email the city manager with your feedback so that by the 29th or when we decide to do it, that we make an informed decision. But please look at the numbers and then please look at the contract to make sure that it gets us toward that. Remember. Ashcroft Thank you. And again, we're talking about doing something that it has been said we should have done long ago in this council is digging in and actually doing it. And when I heard the city manager in the presentation thinks that it will take 15 to 20 years to fix the OPEB problem. What I wrote in the margin on my notes is that we as the City Council need to provide the blueprint for how to do that. We want to show the path forward for not just our council but councils that will come after us. It is the responsible thing to do and I also give our public credit for coming out to the issues that are important to them, whether at a regular meeting or at a special meeting. So I, I don't think we want to delay this any further. And again, some very interesting materials that you've seen in the slides will be coming out for the public a week from today. Thank you. Thank you. Kurt Peterson. Thank you once again. IP. I find it very disturbing that these numbers that are so troubling to our city are presented to you by our city manager rather than our treasurer or auditor. You have to keep in mind he is also the city negotiator on these contracts. You're giving an awful lot of impact and power to one individual here. And he's also telling you that this took years, we've had problems. But by the way, we have to do it in 14 days now. We have to get it taken care of in 14 days. This is the rush. Technique that has been placed in front of our city council for a number of years. I commend you as far as Madam Mayor, to want to do this at a meeting. Maybe it's not convenient, but you knew that this was coming up. You could have planned ahead of it. And I think it is the mayor's responsibility to do agendas as set up agendas, but conveniently were in this again in a special meeting. People aren't going to know. It's going to be presented as far as on the 14th. And you got to realize we've got to papers come out once a week minimum time for them to come up with due information and article again, forcing the hand of the people without their understanding. And it's just unbelievable that you can sit here and let it continue to happen. Take time. Do it correctly. It makes sense. Maybe we won't have a problem in the future if you do it that way. But to have the person that gives you the numbers. I would have felt much better if Mr. Kennedy or Mr. Kearney could have given you these numbers, explained his concern about it, rather than the person that's going to take the time and do the negotiation. And he's going to be leaving office in the very near future as well. Thank you very much. Thank you, Jeff Del Bono. And I don't have any other slips on this item. If you want to speak, please turn in a slip. Not a mayor. Council members, city staff chief told Bono if Local 689 president and negotiator for the last three or four contracts and. This is just to add some context from our perspective because everybody has their own perspective. I think we've been working on this for 15 years since I've been here. I know that it's been a cultural change in our department. I know that I've sat up here and I've had discussions with Mr. Kennedy, Carnegie, John Russo, other people in the community that I have a core belief that people deserve health care, they deserve a good pension when they retire. Mine's good. I'm thankful for that. I have a good health care, good pension. I know that that's an important thing. I know it's important. It's important for the people that are sitting out in the audience tonight that are looking for a good wage. So I'm a true believer in that. But. Under my. Leadership and the. IFC leadership that's been here the last 15 years, we have increased the time. For investment from 5 to. 10 years. This is for OPEB. We have dropped Cadillac plans off. That was something John didn't mention. We've captured a Blue Shield or Kaiser and got rid of the other plans that we that past retirees could pick from. We've dropped the spouse for new hires and set up a412 age plan that they can contribute to for their spouse that they invest in and capped out at Blue Shield or Kaiser. We've taken our pension for our purse and we've gone from pay 9% to 15%. And what does that mean? Whether you believe that overtime should be paid to firefighters or police officers in the city. I do. If I work, I want to be paid for my time. My hourly rate is four $41 an hour and I take $8 of that and I pay it towards my pension and my health care. And I have no problem with that. And at this point, you know, we're looking at a dual to where we form a trust. And the employees who have never played one dime towards their retiree health care are now looking and willing in facing paying a percentage towards a health care trust. So I'll end this by by saying that this health care trust once set up and where the city's invested, the employees are vested. I have another 15 years ago, and I know that you have my word after doing all we have done over the last several years, that we understand that this isn't going to be fully funded . But we are partners. We are willing to sit at the table. We are willing to look at this fund that we're both going to be invested in and make it succeed. That's where we're coming from. I'm speaking for the firefighters. I feel safe enough to speak for the police officers because we've been working together to fund this benefit. And what I would ask of you is give us the same respect back. Realize that sitting down and talking and being respectful to each other works a lot better. Sitting in the coffee shop and yelling things out and badmouthing public safety and badmouthing. Our benefits as leaders doesn't work. So give us the respect back. We want to be respectful to. We're willing we've proven that over and over again. Thank you for your time. Um, I would, I would ask that we have the city treasurer Kevin Kennedy, and parties are putting you on the spot. Mr. KENNEDY. But I happen to know that you have seen this presentation and discussed it with the city manager. Would you mind coming? I wouldn't mind. I was hoping that this would be one of the few meetings that I'm not doing the presentation, Mr. Peterson. I actually have enjoyed someone other than me doing this. This is great. I've spent a lot of time. I was thinking I've probably spent almost as much time with Bartels over the last ten years I have with my son. These numbers are things that I've spent an inordinate amount of time on. I've said all along, I've said it to our city manager. I've said it to the various council members over the last ten or 15 years, and I've said it to Mr. Del Bono and to the police also. My interest is in resolving this in a way that doesn't bankrupt the city, but that also does not deny these employees some of the promises, quite frankly, that the city's made to them over the years. This is not one side versus the other. This is a collaborative effort to try to figure out how we're going to dig our way out of this hole. And I think we've had that type of dialog. I think it's good. But it is a very deep hole, as you can see from those numbers. I got to be honest with you, I've seen those. We did our first actual report in 2007 as a result of changes in the accounting, the Gadsby rules. My stomach turned just as much looking at that tonight as it did the first time I saw those things. That's a big, big number. But at the behest of a Vice Mayor Maharishi, back when he was on council, along with Doug Duhon, I participated in a group that actually quantified these numbers, talked about what was involved. I tried to lay those out. It was not a policymaking group. We did not get into the solutions portion, but we did lay these problems out. That was feels like it was just last year, but it was seven years ago. Now, as a city measure, Russo mentioned, I was part of a task force that sat down with all the interested parties and took a look at what potential solutions were out there. I think that was a productive chance for us all to sit down at the same table and talk about these things. I will tell you, I do have a concern, though. I've been part of the discussion. I haven't been part of the negotiation, and that's probably not my role. But I got these this information yesterday. I was briefed by by our city manager and our assistant city manager yesterday. I've spent a lot of time with these numbers. I opened up the new actuarial reports, which go into a lot more detail than the summary tonight. And quite frankly, it makes my head spin. I've got two weeks to try to figure out. I can't tell you tonight whether I think it's a good deal, a bad deal or indifferent. And I doubt I'm going to tell you tomorrow or at the end of the week. This is a huge, huge pile of information, and I've spent a lot of time with it. So my concern is not whether or not this is a good deal, because, quite honestly, I'm not in a position to weigh in on that at this point. My concern is that if I'm going to have to really bear down over the next couple of weeks to figure out what this is, I don't know how many of you followed that OPEB presentation and understood all of that, but this is OPEB 101. When you look at this and this is a five year deal, so I just think there's an awful lot of work done that needs to be done, I'm sorry, over the next two or three weeks so that the public understands what's going on and the public can express their opinions. And most importantly, the five of, you know, because you're voting on a five year contract and that's a very big thing. Again, I can't tell you if it's good or not, but I can tell you it's a very big decision. And I think it really is going to take a lot of heavy thinking over the next couple of weeks. I'm happy to participate however I can. I need to get my brain around it. I know staff is eager to educate us about it, but. If I have a concern at this point, it's that we've got a couple of weeks to vet what I think is a very critical decision for the city, and I hope we're all up to it. The question's actually may I ask real briefly just because we've talked about this for so many years, you know, both formally and informally, I'm not asking you to give an opinion. I agree with you. You've had 24 hours with the proposal, the solution proposal that's going to be disclosed on the 14th. But the numbers that were in the presentation, they don't look. Unduly rosy to you compared to the number of, say, your task force that put together seven years ago? Because the the allegation here, what's what's sitting here and I know this town well enough at this point to know the narrative that some are attempting to construct. That the numbers are cooked. Do you think those numbers look cooked now? No, I don't think the numbers are cooked. I think you've got an that liability of 91 million. I think in 2007 it was 71 million, something like that. So we're up 21 million since then or 20 million since then. I don't think those numbers are flawed. I think Bartel is a very good actuary firm. They a lot of this is based on assumptions that they're very familiar with and that they use in a lot of places. So I'm not worried about that 91 million being the right bogey. I think the question goes back to how do we fix it and how much can we fix it? Is it feasible to assume that we can continually dig our way out of this hole? Is this proposal that's on the table now? Going to get to move the ball down the field. And again, I'm not saying it won't. I'm not saying it will. But I think we need to figure out in the next 14 to 21 days whether or not this is the way to do it. I think it's very clear on both sides, both from the city standpoint and from employee standpoint, that this isn't a solution. The city manager is very clear. Neither the utter I are under any illusion that this is going to solve the problem. But does it make a difference that's meaningful? Net net with all the different moving parts that are part of this agreement. That's the question. And again. I think the important thing and we talked about this when the last public safety contracts were approved. One of my gripes, if you want to call it that, was that the public did not have a lot of time to vet that. And given that. These things tend to appear on the agenda when they're up for your approval. Not when our position is being considered our negotiating position. You know, we're probably in a similar spot now where the public's opinion, quite honestly, has been rendered moot because this deal has basically been put together. So really what it's falling down to at this point is, are the five of you comfortable with where this goes and your understanding of it? You know, I'm I'm getting used to the process of government, but I. I think this. I don't know if I'm if I'm wrong on this, please correct me, but I'm not sure this is a negotiation at this point. This is deciding whether what we've gotten to is a feasible and viable option. So I think everybody, though, needs to, including the public, if they're able to to to vet these numbers, should spend some time with it, because it again, it's a very, very important thing. Thank you. Any other member questions? I have a question. The current contracts, when do they expire? At 2017. Is it June or January? No, it's it's the end of 2017. Or the end of 2017 is when the current contracts expire. All right. So we're asked why are we doing this now as opposed to closer to the end of 2017? I can kind of answer that. The vice mayor and I heard about this on the campaign trail made it a priority. And this was something that people told us they wanted fixed. I mean, we spent an hour sweating at the Oakland Tribune going through all these numbers. I mean, this is something that is is an issue that is important. And we need to tackle this. And if I recall correctly, we unanimously gave direction to staff a few weeks ago to pursue a path based on what was what they came up with on Friday. So, you know, we gave direction. Staff come up with it. They negotiated in good faith and. I guess I'm confused. Why why there's why there's backlash after we gave gave this direction to the staff to do it this way. If I'm trying to educate the public as to what's going on here, and that hasn't been sure as far as I know. Well, all right. Let me let me suggest that tonight we were trying to place context on OPEB so that the discussion about the eventual contract could be meaningful and placed in an important context. What I will say is this as I've argued with labor for the last two years. This problem of these benefits and the unfunded liability, the longer we don't address them, the harder it becomes to fix them. And I see my friend, the Treasurer, nodding his head. Yes, because we've been having this conversation for years now. The sooner you get at this, the better. So now that there's the opportunity based on council direction to go forward and negotiate what will be an essential first step, a necessary if not sufficient first step in a solution. That's why we're bringing it forward now. Thank you. And then when this comes back, we'll include the entire contract. This will include all the contracts. Will be disclosed on the 14th. It is required by the Sunshine Law. And then we'll highlight the highlight the changes, whatever changes. So that's clear. It'll be strikethrough. Strikethrough. Thank you. And remember Ashcraft. And just for the clarification on the staff report that we will get before the 29th when we consider that the public safety contracts, will we will the staff report include commentary by Mr. Kennedy or his analysis? He said he's he's going over the numbers now. I know. I'm next week. Keeping oh. Wait. Times. I assume that that both Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Carney, who's Mr. Carney with April 15th looming is particularly under the gun, although so is Mr. Kennedy. From what I understand, I assume that both of them will be able to attend and will attend the meeting on the 29th and address answer questions and give their opinion about what they think about it. And I'm pretty confident I'll hear about it before the 29th from them personally. And we could to. Any other member disagree. Or about comments. Uh. Right, we're going to comment. Right. I think we're done with all the speakers. Correct? Right. Thank you. Thank you very much. Earlier this evening, we as a council met in executive session to go over some of the deal points that were going to help inform the discussion that that will happen about the contracts for public safety, particularly. This evening I had voted. I had to stand on the vote. And I just want to make clear as to the reason why I abstained on the vote is because it's similar to what City Treasurer Kevin Kennedy said. I just I need to know not just the mechanics, but in the end I need to know that the numbers are going to help us towards solving the the unfunded liabilities. There are elements to the agreement that are in place. You know what? Share how much people are going to contribute over time. But those percentages and rates in my the way that I deal with these matters in to be applied to some real numbers so that I can say all I see so that adds up to that and that relative to the $91 million is so and so so that I can then eventually say, okay, I think that's a solution that I can live with or not. And because this evening was for the most part about kind of the fleshing out the framework of the discussion, I abstained. It doesn't mean that I'm against the framework. It doesn't mean that I'm against the particulars that were raised in the course of the discussion. It just meant that, you know, for my. Comfort level. I just wanted to actually apply those numbers. Some absinthe that I can also. I'll do that on my own as well. So. So when we eventually have the discussion on the about the contract of the labor contract in our council members and either make a decision that night to make to move forward with a contract or they can make a decision to move forward with the contract at a later time. You know, there are plenty of options. So I don't think we should second guess a person's motives or not. I think in the end, we're going to make a good decision on behalf of the public when it comes to the contract A and B, and this is what I really want to get at. I think we're going to make a good decision on behalf of the public when it comes to dealing with the outstanding unfunded liability for the on the open. And I think we're got we're moving in the right direction because without going into the details. The mechanics of the trust fund idea that City Manager Russo has promoted not just recently, but over the course of 18 months. Roughly, we can Kanaks of the trust fund. The idea is that it could help address the unfunded liabilities that is attributable to workers who are right now working in City Hall. Remember that question that I asked earlier that when you look at the unfunded liabilities, that broadly speaking, you can just you can divide it into two categories of the $91 million, the portion that is attributable to those who are retired right now, they're out of city hall or leading the good life, hopefully. And then there's also the portion of the $91 million as attributable to workers who are right now still in city hall. But we have to make sure to plan for their health needs in the future. So the $91 million breaks off in 2 to 2 numbers. And from what I'm seeing, the mechanics of the trust fund idea that city manager Russo has has put forward over the many months, I think really do begin to deal with the to address the unfunded liability for the current workers. And it's a long term solution. So but I do think that we still are going to have to we're still we still need a strategy for the unfunded OPEB liabilities for those who are already retired. Because, you know, we made a promise to them that the money was going to be there. Now, let me make sure to say right now, as the city manager had indicated, we're paying $3 million every year towards individuals as retired persons as health. I remember that $3 million is, as we had dubbed, it's a pay go, meaning that it's paying for medical services or is paying for whatever agreements that we did for that retirees. But it's not the $3 million is not going towards buying down the outstanding $91 million unfunded liabilities. So on the issue of the OPEB trust, in my mind we almost have to think about having two trusts, one trust or the workers right now with whom we have certain deal points, the mechanics of which are clear. But the the, you know, the extent to which it addresses the unfunded liabilities attributable to current workers, it's it's still out there. But I think it's it's moving us in the right direction. But I also think we need another trust fund of sorts to deal with the unfunded liabilities for those retired workers. So in a nutshell, let me just put it to just just to give you an order of magnitude, my understanding is that of the $91 million in unfunded liabilities for OPEB, of the $91 million, $38 million is attributable attributable to workers right now. We know that the workers right now how long they're going to live when they retire. And we've made the calculation through Bertelsmann Associates, I think it's roughly $38 million needs to be set aside for them. So that means that the balance $53 million is what needs to be strategy. That's what I'm talking about, that there needs to be a strategy for that as well. And also, I think it's important, like I mentioned earlier, that we make this decision on a wide, wide open basis, meaning that there will be some agreements that we're going to have to make with regard to staffing levels over the long term . And the final point is, I do think this is an issue that I raised several weeks ago. I do think that we still need a finance commission, one of whose specific tasks is to kind of, you know, monitor the progress that we would make relative to any agreements we make on the unfunded liabilities for current workers, OPEB liabilities for current workers, or unfunded liabilities for those who are already retired. So thank you. Member Ashcraft. Well, I'm sorry, I. I think Mr.. Brody. I think you met. I just try to be brief. I think if you look at the staff report, you know, there's a sentence in any solution must be developed in partnership with our labor groups. And I think that's the big constraint that I think sometimes is lost in this argument, is that as the council, we cannot sit up here and impose a solution unless we involve our partners in the labor organizations, specifically public safety, because they're the biggest chunk of of of the cost. So. We've had we have this in three parts. You know, we've known about the liability. You it was 71 million back in oh seven. It's 90 some million now. Keeps growing. And we had an idea. There was a task force. The trust fund. That was the idea. So we had to solve how we're going to fund that trust fund. And that's the task that, you know, I think lost in today's discussion is unanimously this council a few weeks ago gave direction to staff using a framework to negotiate a solution, not a complete solution, a partial solution that will not kick the can down the road, but at least maybe will carry the bucket for a few years and then try to have to fill it up again later. So. That's what we the job we gave the staff and they came up with a funding solution. It's painful. It's painful for us as a city. It's painful for our employees who will be doing something that no other bargaining unit in the area will be doing. But I think it's a good step in the right direction. And and I hope that we remain focused on, you know, this is this is the one thing that keeps me awake at night is how are we going to take care of these unfunded liabilities? This and what we do in the next couple of months at Alameda Point are probably the two biggest, biggest issues that are going to face this council. So this is something that's very important to us. I mean, we take this seriously. I hope to hear from a lot of people when the details of of the proposed contract come out, you know. I hope that that, you know. Some of the comments are respectful, you know, and that are responsible. And it's instead of, you know, using some of that code word that the city manager talked about earlier about ramming things through, and I hope the discussion is framed in a way that. If you don't like the way that the city has decided to fund this trust fund, then please come up with different ideas. So, I mean, showing leadership is not sitting in a coffee shop bashing our public safety employees and bashing their benefits. Showing leadership is saying. This is how we're going to find a solution. And if one of us doesn't like that solution, then I think to show leadership, it's our job to find a different solution. So I'm really looking forward to spending the next few weeks diving into the details of this and and especially on the impacts. So when we see the numbers, you know, it's not going to solve the entire 91 million. Of course, Member de Song alluded to that. But let's pay attention to what what we are going to solve and the big chunk that we're going to take out of this liability. And then our next task is to approach, you know, the other 38 million and come up with solutions that we can make this long term sustainable. But I think this is a good first step, and I'm really interested in delving into the details. Amber Ashcraft. Thank you. Mayor Spencer And so I was just going to ask a couple of maybe pragmatic housekeeping questions to the folks who think we shouldn't be moving forward at the end of this month considering these revised contract provisions. Is it because you feel we don't have enough information? And if so, what is that information? What more information would you want to have? I've heard the concern that it's a special meeting versus a regular meeting, so people aren't as attuned to that regular, first and third Tuesday. But we all know that we can have a regular council meeting with a very sparse attendance because it's more the agenda items that bring people out rather than it just being a regular meeting. And people participate in all different ways. They're watching us on television, on their computers, live streaming. And then I also want us to consider the question, do we think it's preferable to continue these current contracts that are in place? Because then we wouldn't be adding these provisions that start getting the employees to help pay down their own pay towards their own benefits and help us start paying toward our OPEB liability. It's not quite the same, but I'm just going to analogize to the Iranian nuclear agreement that was was agreed to on a national and international stage last week. And and yet there is a party in Congress that would like to just tear it apart. And the question there is, is it better to continue with no agreement in that case or an agreement that maybe not perfect but took a long time in the making? I do know that the city manager, I think, has a weekly breakfast meeting with the two Kevins, as we like to call them, Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Kearney . I do realize it's tax tax season and you guys are really busy and we do appreciate all the good work you do for the city. But when this staff report comes back, I do want to see the devil's advocate portion. I guess the devil's in the details and I want to see the devil's advocate position because we don't just want a happy talk and we want to know, you know what? Why is this a good idea? Why maybe is this not I want to hear. I mean, it will help all of us make a more informed decision. I'm not entirely clear on what Member De SA still wants to see, but perhaps he will. We'll let staff know because when this comes back to us, I do want us to have as complete information. I, I know because the city managers kept us informed in the last month or so that these talks have been ongoing. And that's the nature of talks. You don't you don't get everybody agreeing to all the points that need to be agreed to the first time out. It's been an ongoing process. So give us all the details. The good, the bad, the ugly. Don't sugarcoat it. We we want to have all the information possible to make a good, informed decision and to any of the council staff public who would like to see more information, shoot an email to to the staff. They'll they'll consider it. Thank you, Mayor. I swear. The only thing I'd like to say is that I'm looking at this as if we do nothing. What happens if we do this? What's the upside? And is it worth the downside? Is the money we're going to save worth the five extra years, for example? That's a good thing to measure. I urge people to do that. Second thing is, if this is a matter of having a special meeting versus a regular meeting, I'm perfectly willing to say we can meet on the fifth at the regular fifth six days to me, doesn't matter in the scope of things here. I, I do like the fact that it's paired with a budget hearing because this is the number one issue of, of our budget. And I think if everybody is heightened to it. But I think we're going to do a better job at educating people on what the impact of what these decisions are. So in regards to our budget calendar, I believe we also still have budget meetings coming up. We're not finished with the budget in April. So we have not seen our multi-year budgets. I think we have a meeting May 12th that addresses the budget. No, actually the multi-year budget will be presented on April 16. So there's a meeting next week. That's on next Thursday, April 16, and that's where the five year budget projections will be presented. Then there's a regular council meeting on April 21. And then there's another budget meeting on April 29. Then there's another budget meeting second week of May, and then there's a regular council meeting on May five. And my understanding is that. This item. Is going to be presented. And part of that budget. Projection on the 16th. Correct. This item will be included include numbers will be included. And on the 14th the entire package will be presented to the public, sharing a lot of the data that the Council and mayor have already received. And if during those numbers, during that presentation of the numbers, if council members want to start exploring some of the ramifications of the potential deal, it's not an orderly process that way, but it's your process. So so we do have more budget meetings coming up after the date in April. Yes. So so that's one of my concerns. I also like to bring the public along as much as we've had now to close session meetings of approximately half an hour each to discuss this. The public has not been privy to that. And I think it's very important that the numbers be shared with the public. And I am looking forward to seeing the continuing meetings on the budget and the multi-year budgets as well as the entire contract that we will be being asked to extend the entire contract, not just this and I have not been privy to the looking at the entire contract. I think that that's very important that that be shared. Any other comments on this one? Thank you. So now we can move on to six be. Recommendation to accept report on offer to transfer a portion of the Oakland Inner Harbor Tidal Canal from the Army Corps of Engineers to the city of Alameda at no cost and subsequent disposition of property. Madam Mayor and Council, this particular item is coming to you primarily from my office, Andre Pennock as an assistant city attorney in my office, and Jillian Blanchard of Rutter Law Group, who is an Alameda attorney, have been working very hard with the Army Corps of Engineers and other potential regional partners.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute an agreement with Los Angeles River Revitalization Corporation to conduct an Integrated Design and Technical Analysis of the Long Beach portion of the Los Angeles River in an amount not to exceed $250,000 for a term of 12 weeks; Increase appropriations in the General Fund (GF) in the City Manager Department (CM) by $250,000, offset by FY 15 Year-End Surplus; and Identify additional funding sources for the remaining cost of $250,000. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_03222016_16-0275

Motion carries. Next item please. Report from City Manager Recommendation to execute an agreement with Los Angeles River Revitalization Corporation to conduct an integrated design and technical analysis of the Long Beach portion of the L.A. River in an amount not to exceed $250,000 citywide. Thank you, Mr. City Manager. Yes. We have a report here from our deputy city manager, Arturo Sanchez. Good evening, Vice Mayor Lowenthal. And members of. The City Council. The item before you. Is an agreement with the L.A. River Revitalization Corporation to conduct an integrated design and technical analysis of the Long Beach portion of the L.A.. River. The L.A. River Revitalization. Corporation has assembled a technical team that includes Gehry, Partners Olin and Geocentric to develop an integrated design that looks at the entire river. So this is really exciting. They're looking at the entire 51 miles. But they're going to start the first phase of their analysis down in the lower portion in this area of Long Beach. And so their first phase of their analysis will actually begin down here. Commitments have been made by the Ramsay. The Santa monica. Rivers and Mountains Conservancy as well. And we are essentially just contributing to the pool of money that's looking at a way to revitalize the entire stretch of the Los Angeles River in a holistic way that will add recommendations and layers as to the types of developments that we can have in our portion. That would be. That would fit in. Well with whatever other recommendations they have in the upper portions. So the recommendation from staff is. That you authorize the city manager to execute an agreement with the Los Angeles River Revitalization Corporation to conduct the integrated design for the Long Beach portion of Los Angeles River in an amount not to exceed $250,000 for a term of 12 weeks. Thank you, Mr. Sanchez. And I want to thank staff for bringing this item forward. And I'm looking forward to our participation in this process that is long overdue and very exciting. That renowned architect Frank Gehry and his firm are working on the very iconic parts of what this river revitalization will be about. So I'm definitely looking forward to that. Councilwoman Price. Of no comment. Thank you, Councilmember Richardson. I just wanted to chime in and say how exciting this is. And Mr. West and Mr. Sanchez, you guys are doing a great job on this, how you figured out how to how to pay for this. And I want to I want to say, as a community that has the river in it, I'm really excited to see improvements here in Long Beach to our river. So congratulations. You have my support and to the leaders, the mayor and other districts with the river in it. This is really exciting for for all of us. So I you know, this is another big thing for our city that we should all be excited about and seeing how it develops. Thanks. Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzalez. I, too, just wanted to share my excitement. This has been a long time coming. I want to thank the city staff, Arturo and and Pat, as well as the mayor, for keeping this on our radar. I know we're hearing it a lot out there and the 710 Project Committee, and they've included that. And it's exciting to know that Long Beach will now be a part of of this. So thank you for all your efforts. Councilman, you Ranga. Thank you, Mayor. I represent the seventh District and a river runs through it. I want to thank staff for supporting this. I think it's it was a no brainer in the sense that so much is going on in the northern portion of the river and we need to take care of ourselves in the southern part of the river. So I want to thank Stephanie for doing this. Thank you. Emotion. In a second, public comment on the item saying please cast your vote. Motion carries. 22.

On the message and order, referred on April 13, 2022 Docket #0497, authorizing a limit for the Distributed Energy Resource Revolving Fund for Fiscal Year 2023 to facilitate the purchase of offsets of greenhouse gas emissions which shall be associated with a portion of the electricity consumed by the City annually; and to operate, maintain, monitor and expand the City's existing solar arrays and Boston Public Schools' combined heat and power facilities. This revolving fund shall be credited with any and all receipts from the sale of renewable and alternative energy certificates and demand response program revenues produced by combined heat and power units located at Boston Public Schools sites and solar renewable energy certificates produced by the City's photovoltaic arrays. Receipts and resulting expenditures from this fund shall not exceed One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000.00), the committee submitted a report recommending the order ought to pass.

BostonCC_06082022_2022-0497

Lucky number 0497. The Committee on Ways and Means on Ways and Means to which was referred on April 13, 2020 to Dr. Number 0497. Message in order authorizing and limit for the Distributed Energy Resource Revolving Fund for fiscal year 2023 to facilitate the purchase of US offsets of greenhouse gas emissions, which shall be associated with a portion of the electricity consumed by the city. Annually. And to operate, maintain, monitor and expand the city's existing solar arrays. In Boston, public schools combined heat and power facilities. This revolving fund shall be credited with any and all receipts from the sale of renewable and alternative energy certificates and demand response program revenues produced by combined heat and power units located at Boston Public School sites and solar renewable energy certificates produced by the city's photovoltaic arrays. Receipts and resulting expenditures from this fund shall not exceed $150,000, cements a report recommending that the order of the pass doc number zero 490, the Commission Committee on Ways and Means, to which was referred on April 13, 2020 to number 049, a message in honor of the raising

Recommendation to direct City Attorney to draft an ordinance amending Long Beach Municipal Code Chapter 14.14 to enable a gym parklet pilot project (Project) for the installation of a sidewalk extension parklet for fitness activities and equipment within the City's right-of-way adjacent to 333 Pine Avenue; and Authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute a Public Walkways Occupancy Permit with sidewalk extension parklet for the Project at Groundwork Fitness located at 333 Pine Avenue.

LongBeachCC_01162018_18-0042

Motion carries. Great. And the second item is out of nine. Councilman Gonzales. So relative to the former discussion, this would be basically amending the municipal code to allow a gym parklet in front of Groundwork Fitness. And so I want to thank goodness I told her not to come. But Jill Ferraro, who has been very diligent in working with my office, I also want to thank the city attorney's office, Charlie and Linda Vu, as well as Shaun Crombie and Public Works. I know we gave you all a headache over these parklets and I know it was a lot to navigate with us, but we appreciate it and now we will hopefully have a nice new gym parklet in front of her space. So we're excited about that. I'll be working out and not really get a motion in a second, please. Why don't we let Councilman Gonzalez the real. Is there any public comment on this signal to scatter votes?

A proclamation in observance of the Fifth Annual Indigenous Peoples’ Day in the City and County of Denver.

DenverCityCouncil_10122020_20-1131

Thank you, Madam Secretary. The communication has been received and filed. We have one proclamation being read this evening. Councilmember Torres, will you please read proclamation one one, three, one. Thank you. Council President in observance of the fifth annual Indigenous Peoples Day in the city and county of Denver. Whereas the city, the Council of the City and County of Denver recognizes that the indigenous peoples have lived and flourished on the lands known as the Americas since time immemorial, and that Denver and the surrounding communities are built upon the ancestral homelands of numerous indigenous tribes, including the southern ute and Ute mountain ute tribes of Colorado. And. Whereas, the tribal homelands and seasonal encampments of the Arapaho and Cheyenne peoples along the banks of the Cherry Creek and the South Platte River confluence gave bearing to future settlements that would become the birthplace of the Mile High City. And. Whereas, Colorado encompasses ancestral home lands of 48 tribes, and the city and county of Denver and surrounding communities are home to descendants of approximately 100 tribal nations. And. WHEREAS, on October 3rd, 2016, the Council of the City and County of Denver unanimously passed Council Bill 16, Dash 801, officially designating the second Monday of October of each year as Indigenous Peoples Day in Denver, Colorado. And. Whereas, the Council of the City and County of Denver continues to recognize and value the vast contributions made to the community through indigenous peoples knowledge of science, philosophy, arts and culture. And through these contributions, the City of Denver has developed and thrived. And. WHEREAS, the city and county of Denver all acknowledges that the role of women within the indigenous community is a sacred role and all encompassing and central role to the aspects of indigenous culture, life and knowledge, and is vital to the health, wellness and safety of indigenous communities. And. Whereas, many outstanding Indigenous women have organized, led, local and national proactive efforts addressing COVID 19 health and education, preparedness and response, missing and murdered Indigenous people, awareness and native specific homelessness advocacy. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver that the Council celebrates and honors the cultural and foundational contributions of indigenous people to our history, past, present and future, and continues to promote the education of the Denver community in these historical and contemporary contributions of indigenous people of the city and county of Denver does hereby observe October 12th, 2020 as Indigenous Peoples Day, and that the Clerk in the city and county of Denver shall a test and affix a seal to this proclamation, and that a copy be transmitted to the Denver American Indian Commission and the Colorado Commission of Indian Affairs. Thank you, Councilmember Torres your motion to adopt. I move that proclamation 20 dash 1131 be adopted. Second, second. It has been moved. And second term I think we got. Councilman Hines and then Councilwoman Ortega in comments by members of council. Councilmember Torres. Thank you so much. Declaring the second Monday in October Indigenous Peoples Day was championed by my predecessor, now Clark Lopez, when he was on council. It is both about recognition and visibility, not just here in Denver, but nationally. Two years ago, this country elected the first indigenous women ever to Congress, and today an indigenous woman is running for office in Arizona. And she's shared something that I'd like to share with you. In her words, quote, My late grandmother, Katherine Jose Maria, was born here in Arizona in 1918. Although our people were here first, my grandma was not considered a U.S. citizen at her birth because she was awesome. She was not born with the right to vote in 1924, when my grandma was six years old. Congress passed legislation that granted Native Americans US citizenship but did not necessarily give them the right to vote. Voting laws were controlled by states and Arizona law explicitly denied natives that right. In 1939, she turned 21 the legal voting age, but was not allowed to cast a ballot in 1948 when she was 30 years old. To Fort McDowell. Yavapai tribal members and World War Two veterans attempted to register to vote in Maricopa County. After returning home from the war when they were denied, they sued the state for violating their constitutional rights. The Arizona Supreme Court agreed. In 1948, the decision in Harrison V Living finally guaranteed Native Americans the right to vote in Arizona. However, being given the right to vote did not mean that Native Americans were able to vote. State government workers, still US natives and other people of color to take literacy tests. Subjected them to intimidation tactics. Or simply denied them entry when they tried to cast a ballot. It wasn't until the rise of the civil rights movement and the resulting Voting Rights Act of 1965, that federal law finally protected my grandmother's ability to vote. It is my honor to present this proclamation this year and remind everyone in Denver that our ability to vote was and is hard fought for. Thank you so much, Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember Torres. And seen no other hands raised for comments by my colleagues. I want to acknowledge and thank you for bringing this forward and the many women families who have suffered for. Centuries. And us acknowledging what has transpired and setting the intention to do differently. I appreciate that. And we can just continue that work together and moving this forward. Thank you for the work on this and especially the land acknowledgment that I hope that we can start to incorporate into our meeting because words matter and the way in which we use those words matter and the consistency and the intent also matters . And so thank you for for that and the initiative. Councilwoman. Madam Secretary, roll call. Torres. I. Black. I see tobacco. I. Clark. I. Flynn. I. Herndon. I. Hands. Hi. Cashman. I can reach. I. Ortega. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Madam President. Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting and announce the results. 13 Eyes. 13 Eyes. Proclamation 113. One has been adopted. We have 5 minutes for the proclamation. Acceptance Council member Torres will start the five minute timer. Would you please introduce who you'd like to bring up to accept this proclamation? Thank you. Council President I would like to introduce Dr. Christy Nelson. Dr. Nelson was recently organized an indigenous collective of community members via Zoom, social networking, focusing on education, community building and support, physical and mental wellbeing and response to the COVID 19 pandemic. She is an assistant professor at the Madrid College of Education at the University of Denver. Dr. Nelson blends critical theory and indigenous perspectives and methods to explore long term impacts of pre-college access programs. She strives to challenge the status quo of higher education for native students and their communities. I also welcome Danielle C Walker, who is a multitalented writer and artist who lives in the Green Valley Ranch community. She's an active member of the Denver American Indian Commission since 2019. This past July, she published her book Still Here A Past and A Past Present Insight of Native American People and Culture. And she was a featured artist at the Denver Mesa Art Museum Web page. Danielle is also the co-creator of the Red Road Project, an art and media project documenting words and visuals of inspiring and resilient stories of Native America. And they are both here. I see. They want to unmute. Hello. You have the floor for about 5 minutes. I will go first, Daniel, if you don't mind. Thank you. Ghazi. I am honored to be given the space to address the council and the audience in attendance today. I wanted to start by just doing a little bit of recognition in terms of the history of indigenous communities here in Denver. So in 1956, through the Indian Relocation Act, Denver was identified as one of those relocation sites through the Relocation Act. Young native folks were given the opportunity to seek education and job opportunities. However, this was a very systematized approach to dislocating and removing indigenous people from their traditional homelands as they gathered here in the now Denver area . 60 years later, I'm very honored to know that Colorado Rises, which stands for Reclaiming Indigenous Spaces. Educational Sovereignty is really the epitome and the lived experiences of all of our past generations. I'm very honored to be able to have the space to honor the family that I have, the people that have taught me how to engage with our communities. And I'm so honored to be able to work with so many great folks across the state of New Mexico. I'm sorry, Colorado. Sorry. I'm from New Mexico. Again, I really do appreciate the space and time and again, I just passed this on to Danielle. And Chris wash day and Apache is a pro Honda and you'll see Walker immediately. Denver wanted my papa Lakota a Taha Standing Rock Sioux tribe. I greet you all from the bottom of my heart. My name is Daniel C Walker and I live here in Denver. I am from the Standing Rock Sioux tribe and am identify as Papa Lakota. I'm honored and humbled to be here with you all today. Our on to Indigenous Peoples Day as we acknowledge all of our indigenous communities in the nation. But I specifically wanted to address and acknowledge our missing and murdered indigenous women, girls and to spirited people. While violence plays, plagues many communities across the country and the world, I wanted to specifically recognize the missing and murdered indigenous women, girls, and to spirit people on these lands. Indigenous women are ten times more likely to be killed than the national average in the United States. And of the several, several thousands of documented, we know there's more than this, but documented cases of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls and two spirit people in this country. There's only been about 100 cases that were included in the US Department of Justice missing persons lists. Four out of five indigenous women experience violence in their life, while one out of two half of us experience sexual violence in our lifetime. It's not even a matter of of of us thinking, how could this happen to us? It's a matter of kind of thinking, when is it going to happen to us? And so we need more awareness on this epidemic that not only plagues us here in the United States, but many indigenous communities around the world. And we just need more resources. And any time I have a platform to speak about this and bring awareness, I do feel a major. Thank you very much. Gratitude to be here. Thank you. Thank you very much, Christine and Danielle, and the important perspective and words that you brought and Councilwoman Torres for sponsoring this proclamation. Any any final words, Councilwoman? No, thank you.

AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle’s construction codes; adopting the Seattle Boiler Code, Building Code, Electrical Code, Existing Building Code, Fuel Gas Code, Mechanical Code, Plumbing Code, and Residential Code by reference, amending certain chapters of those codes, and adopting new chapters for those codes; correcting references to those codes in the Seattle Municipal Code; making technical corrections; adding a new Chapter 22.101 to the Seattle Municipal Code; amending the title of Subtitle I of Title 22, Sections 5.73.020, 6.410.070, 6.420.030, 22.170.010, 22.170.050, 22.206.090, 22.206.130, 22.206.160, 22.208.020, 22.502.016, 22.801.030, 25.09.100, 25.09.110, 25.09.120, 25.09.220, and 25.09.520 of the Seattle Municipal Code; repealing Chapters 22.100 and 22.110 and Subtitles IA, III, IV, IVA, and IVB of Title 22 of the Seattle Municipal Code; and repealing ordinances or sections of the following ordinances that adopted or amended older editions of construction codes: 117723, 118654, 119478, 121865, 125156, 125157, 125158, 125160, 125161, 125162, 125337, 125408, 125409, 125410,

SeattleCityCouncil_02012021_CB 119992

Thank you. The motion carries and the appointments are confirmed. Thank you. Moving on now to the report of the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee. Will the clerk please read the short title of item 31 into the Record Report of the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee Agenda Item 31 Council 119992 relating to sales construction codes adopting the Seattle Boiler. Code Building Code Electrical Code, existing building code, fuel gas. Code, mechanical code, planning code and residential code by reference. The committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you, Madam Clerk. I'm going to go ahead and had this over to Councilmember Strauss, who is the chair of this of the committee. Please tell us more stress. Thank you. Council President. Colleagues, this legislation adopts construction codes, including a new boiler code building code, electrical code, fuel gas code, mechanical code, plumbing code and residential code. As Amelia just noted, this this item in particular does not include the energy code updates, which we will consider in the next agenda item. Construction codes are updated every three years, following a process of updating national and state level codes. This update comes to comes at the end of the 2018 construction codes cycle. The changes in this legislation adopt and align with the new state codes and adopt some Seattle specific provisions that go further than the state codes. These codes were developed by Department of Construction Inspection and their Technical Code Development Team in consultation with the Construction Code Advisory Board. They were also informed by extensive stakeholder outreach. Code updates are largely technical in nature, but a few highlights of these new codes include establishing standards for cross limited timber structures up to 18 storeys in height , creating standards for gender neutral toilets. New standards are new standards for tsunami loads in areas that are at risk of tsunami inundation and updating seismic design standards based on modeling. Thank you. Council President. That is the report from the committee. Thank you so much, Councilmember Strauss colleagues. Did you want to open it up for any additional comments? Are there any additional comments on the bill? Council members want, please. Thank you. And I know items 31 and 32 are. Connected on the building energy grid update. So I will speak to both. I'm happy to vote in favor of these two bills to update Seattle's energy codes for new large buildings to prohibit fossil fuel heaters and boilers. Really appreciate everybody who testified today and before in public comment. Carpet developers have proven again and again that capitalism's private market has no interest in stopping climate change. As was mentioned, the latest greenhouse gas emissions report from the Office of Sustainability and the Environment found that rather than reducing emissions, Seattle increased emissions from buildings by 8.1%. This is alarming. We know indisputably that we have to end greenhouse gas emissions in order to avoid a global climate catastrophe, endangering every person on the planet, not just slow down emissions and certainly not accelerate emissions like corporate developers have done. You would think that since climate change is destroying the planet for everyone, even corporate executives would care about addressing it. But this is the inexorable logic of capitalism. Whatever corporation pursues short term profits most ruthlessly at the cost of ordinary people, humanity and the planet, and is the most successful in shifting its costs to the workers and the environment. Those are the corporations with a Darwinian advantage at the expense of all of society. So I very much support this legislation prohibiting those developers from building new fossil fuel burning boilers and heaters in the largest new buildings in Seattle. This is a step forward, and it is a testament to the organization's legacy. 50 Sierra Club Climate Solutions and Puget Sound Sage and other organizations which have been campaigning against natural gas hookups for years, including the native activist community. It is a substantive step forward, although it is obviously limited. It does not address preexisting buildings, new construction of smaller buildings. And since the dark times on movement one funding to retrofit older buildings, it would not make sense to at the same time continue building new fossil fuel burning infrastructure. And most importantly, it does not address how electricity generated in Washington state. Seattle City Lake generates emission free hydropower, largely because of the power plants built during the New Deal almost 100 years ago. So the buildings in Seattle will use clean energy for their electricity, but that is not the end of the story because the light trades electricity back and forth with every other utility in the region. Any word that is not used in Seattle is sold to other places on the West Coast. That means that if Seattle uses more electricity with its own energy, you will have more of a market to sell. Electricity outside Seattle and Puget Sound Energy burns, fracked natural gas to generate electricity. So in addition to these important bills, we need a full fledged green new deal with green jobs to build clean power plants across the state and across the country, like in the 1930s Green New Deal program. Just like we cannot rely on for profit developers to protect the climate when building in Seattle, we cannot trust for profit energy companies like PSC generate our electricity. This is another key reason why I am a socialist and I'm, as I said, I'm happy to vote yes on these legislation. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Silent. Are there any additional comments on the bill? Councilmember Herbert Place You know, I'm not a member of somebody else's committee, but I want to thank them for doing the work necessary to bring this legislation forward together with the work of his committee members. When I also give a shout out to former Councilmember Mike O'Brien for spearheading this work at the at the council level, consistent with the activism referenced by Councilmember Salant of organizations like 350 Board. And. A Green New Deal for Seattle. After we passed a resolution in August 2019 and an executive order working to advance many, many pieces of of of. Regulation that this is, I think, one important part moving forward but has been stated. There's a there's a lot to be done in order to reach the goal of significantly reducing carbon emissions to the existing pool of increasing energy efficiency. Of course, as as has been mentioned, we we will need to do more to address the existing buildings as well as to figure out how to. Incentivize efficiency of smaller buildings, including single family homes that use natural gas. Heating the Urbanists reports that fossil fuel gas from Puget Sound Energy produces 15% of the city's CO2 emissions in 2018. So I think, again, that really points to the work that we need to do together. I also want to highlight that the Council did fund positions in the 2021 budget to move forward the work of the Green New Deal Oversight Committee, look forward to their recommendations and want to again recognize that the advocacy necessary to fund those positions is is advocacy that's coming from the community to hold us accountable and make sure that we are charting a path forward. Thank you. Thank you for that. Colleagues. Any other any additional comments on the bill? Hearing no additional comments on the bill. Will the clerk please call the vote on the passage of the bill? Morales Yes. Macheda. I, Peterson. Yes. Sir. What? Yes. Strauss Yes. Herbold Yes. Suarez, I. Lewis. Yes. President Gonzalez. High nine in favor. None opposed. The bill. Check the pill. Excuse me. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Okay. Item 32 Will the court please read the short titled item 32 into the record?

A proclamation honoring Helga Grunerud for outstanding leadership and advocacy for small/minority/woman-owned construction companies in Colorado.

DenverCityCouncil_01082018_18-0033

The accompanying attachment contains a more detailed description of the financing, as required by Section 29, repair and B of the Dear Emcee. Sincerely, Brendan G. Hanlon, Manager of Finance. Thank you, Madam Secretary. All right. We're going to move on to our proclamations. We do have one proclamation this evening. Evening, Councilman Nu, will you please read Proclamation 33? Thank you, Mr. President. This is proclamation number 18 003 that's been introduced by Councilwoman or to Councilman Cashman, myself honoring Helga Gregory from Outstanding Leadership and advocacy for small , minority and women owned construction companies in Colorado. Whereas Helga utilized her voice in education and MBA in operations management in her career and volunteer time to pursue her passion for diversity, fairness and cooperation for all in education and business. And. Whereas, Helga Grinspoon has taught students in high school college levels and through an online financial class for Regis University Master's in nonprofit management program, thereby influencing future business leaders with the need for inclusion of talent from many sources and with the necessity and profitability of good operations practices. And. Whereas, Helga Grandin has demonstrated her organizational leadership by serving on a myriad of committees for such entities as the Denver Public Schools, RTD, CDOT, Denver Water and the State of Colorado as part of the Colorado Minority Business Advisory Council and the Building Jobs for Colorado Coalition. And. WHEREAS, since Helga Greenwald started with the Hispanic contractors of Colorado's diversity leader in 2000, the membership has more than tripled and includes some of the largest contractors in the United States, plus some of the smallest contractors in Colorado. And. Whereas, in her capacity in these organizations, Helga Gertrud has fought tirelessly to develop programs geared toward increasing opportunities for diverse companies and for diverse workforce development, recognizing especially the benefits of public projects that provide small minority women owned companies, particularly in the construction industry. And. Whereas, drawing upon Helga's teaching experience, HCC secured grants for the T-Rex project, which launched the HCC Contractor Academy Education Program, offering a monthly series of workshops, a certificate program and scholarships for small businesses. Whereas Helga Greiner and has been the recipient of numerous awards, including the Minority Enterprise Development 2006 Advocate of the War of the Year , the Associated Builders and Contractors. Rocky Mount, Chapter 28 Excellence in Construction Award. The Independent Electrical Contractors Rocky Mount. Chapter 29 Construction Industry Service Award, the Denver Metro Chamber 2010. David Bailey, Small Business Advocate Award and the Deputy's Task Colorado Chapter 2015 Diversity Leadership Award and the RTD 2017 Champion of of Growth Award and. WHEREAS. As you know, Greenwood has been a driving force and major contributor and determined champion of the effort to pass the Denver City Council pavement ordinance legislation for small, minority and women owned businesses initiated by Councilman Wayne, new councilwoman Debbie Italian Councilman Paul Cashman, an ordinance which revised and improved the laws and means of enforcement for the protection of diverse construction companies. And. WHEREAS, she retired recently from the from the position of executive director of the Hispanic Contractors of Colorado in December 2017, but has vowed to stay involved with many small business issues, launching her own business consulting firm and helping scout develop their mentor apprenticeship program, providing that she still committee proving that she is still committed to her passion to assist all contractors, regardless of side size, ethnicity and gender, to position themselves to become successful now, therefore be a proclaimed by the Council, the City of County of Denver, Section one, that the county applauds Helga Green Reed for her passion and commitment to the small minority and women owned businesses and their workers. Section two that the clerk in the city county of Denver show affix your chest and face the seal of the city of Denver to this proclamation and a copy be transmitted to Helga Green Room. Thank you, Councilman. Knew your motion to adopt. I move that I move that proclamation 30 3ba document. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of council. Councilman. Thank you, Mr. President. It's just been a real pleasure to work with Helga over the past year. I can. I can think back. So about a year ago, when you and and Bennett had first brought this issue of, ah, the need for a prompt payment ordinance to, to our attention and, and we walked and we talked and talked and, and worked on this. And as a brief, we briefed all our council members about what the ordinance was about and, and the need to involve other organizations. I can remember so vividly talking to Councilwoman Gilmore and she said, the first person you need to talk to, this Helga girl, she is so dynamic and she needs has been a voice for the small business and the minority and the women owned businesses. And she she's going to be a great help to you. So we help with that call. And she really joined our team and really helpful so she heard it was just amazing the her experience and knowledge and in the passion that she had for these small business owners and trying to improve the prop pay and the improvements in for their their operational practices to make them more successful. So she was just so dedicated for the growth and development of small business. She had a great insight into payment difficulties and sort of helped us get down to the nuts and bolts of the ordinance that helped put our procedures and our mechanisms in place to improve those practices. So we're just so pleased with the practical, the common sense and recommendations that she helped us with our ordinance. And it really brought that. The 2014 ordinance to life with what we did. And so we're mean. We're so glad that council passed it unanimously. The mayor never signed it. So we're so pleased with what we did. So I just want to thank Helga for all her leadership and her dedication and support that she's given to us in the development of the ordinance and and especially just her support for all the small business in the growth and development over those years. So she's really been a model of excellence for the small business in the construction industry. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. Pro tem. First, I want to thank Councilman Noon for bringing this forward. Anybody who knows Helga knows that there was not a meeting in the city dealing with publicly funded projects, that Helga was not in the room at, making sure that there was advocacy on behalf of small and minority businesses who are trying to access any of this work with the city. And unfortunately, the challenges still exist today. We wouldn't need our BWB ordinance if we didn't have ongoing challenges, but Helga knows and understands those challenges better than anybody on what these small businesses, minority businesses, have to go through just trying to get their foot in the door to do business with the city and as Councilman knew, indicated, she was a tireless voice in this process that we just went through and also connected us to many of the businesses who are willing to talk to us, but were afraid to come to our public hearing because they didn't want to be labeled as someone that a prime business would not want to work with. And so having that connection in those voices really helped shape the details that ended up in the ordinance that ensures that we will have prompt pay and transparency in the building process to ensure that people who do construction work on a job that have to purchase the materials and pay their suppliers and pay their workers, are going to get paid for the work that they did that has been completed and accepted. And Helga, your your voice and your advocacy in this overall effort was invaluable as well as. And who's sitting right behind you to to ensure that we understood what those challenges were and helped, again, make sure that those details ended up in the ordinance. So I appreciate you and the work you've done over the years. Thank you for your service to our community and to the many small minority businesses that we have throughout the city of Denver. And I wish you the best of luck in your new. Ventures with your new business. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. Pro tem. Helga, congratulations on your retirement. I have a hard time having gotten to know you the little bit that I have picturing you just going fishing for the rest of your days. I have a hunch you're going to stay a lot more active and involved than that. It is not lost on me that in the current political climate that this this team that was assembled to to help pass the the prompt pay ordinance was a team of strong women representing a variety of corners of the construction trades. And Helga was was among the the strongest and most consistent voices in that entire process. And I thank you for that very much. I learned a lot from you along the way. You know, when Councilman Nu first brought the topic up and made a great deal of sense to me, but neither the councilman or myself or Councilwoman Ortega are experts in that field. And Helga, you were the first person after and who actually brought the topic up originally that brought this new level of expertize to the discussion and really helped me understand the importance of what we were doing to help the small businesses and the maybe we be minority and women owned business contractors . So I just want to add my thanks to you for the many years you've devoted to to the work you've done in the community. It is very, very important and you've changed a lot of lives. And thank you for that. And again, congratulations. Thank you, counsel. Councilman. Councilwoman Gilmore, your next stop. Thank you, Mr. President. Pro tem. I just want to share. Congratulations. There's not many people in Denver that you can say one name, and it might just be that your last name is a German name and difficult to pronounce. But you say, Helga, and right away, especially around construction or leadership in Denver, people immediately know. Who you are and know your. Passion. And so I'm so honored that, you know, way back a year ago when Councilman New called me and I talked with him about this project and I said, there is one person, one woman that you have to get in touch with that she knows construction in and out. And she really understands the barriers and the challenges, especially that minorities and women undergo to to get into this field. And so just want to want to convey my thanks and I'm sure we will be seeing you around. I'm glad to know that you're going to have a consulting firm because we've got a lot of construction projects all across the state. And we're going to need to continue to have your help to make sure that. Our. Minority and women owned businesses can compete on on that playing field. And so congratulations again, Helga. Thank you. Princeton President Pro Tem. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. President. I'll be brief. I actually worked more with Helga, I think, before I was elected than I have since. Ironically, it was some tables at our TDI that brought us together around construction training, which I'm just going to say it was not as cool of a topic back then. The economy was slow and everyone thought you didn't need to train people and you know, folks that were with contractors. We're all very aware of the aging workforce and the fact that the economy would come back someday. And but it was kind of like crying into the wind back in those days, right? Because it was hard to keep anybody working, much less getting new folks trained. And so. Well, we know how that turned out, right. It's it's it's been a really challenging moment, but it just shows the breadth of the career you've had through different cycles to see the way the industry has changed. And so I enjoyed working with you then, and I want to congratulate you and wish you the best in your retirement. All right. Seeing no other comments, Madam Secretary, roll call. New Ortega I Assessment I Black. Eye. Espinosa, i Gilmore. I Herndon. I Cashman. Hi. Can eat. Lopez All right, Mr. President, I. I'm sorry. Could you please close the voting and announce the results? 11 Eyes. 11 Eyes Proclamation 33 has been adopted. Councilman New. Is there someone you would like to invite up to the podium to receive the proclamation? Yes, Mr. Fraga. To help his colleagues like to speak. And versus his is Jacob Break. Thank you, counsel. Thank excuse the call. I may. Mumble. Thanks for the opportunity to join with all of you to congratulate. Helga and I. I want to do two things, and then I'll sit down so we can get to the Alabama game. Before you really understand how much Al Gore accomplished, you got to understand where she started. 27 years ago, I got a call from a young man named Lester Trujillo when I was executive director of the Associated General Contractor. And he said to me, we're starting a new construction group in Denver. And we'd like to meet with the Associated General Contractors Board to get. Partnering. And get cooperation to help us get this thing off the ground. So a bunch of us met and some of you remember the old regimes. They used to have these little back rooms and get breakfast. And we met in that backroom with Lester Trujillo and several of the Hispanic contractors, one of whom was supposed to precede me . Phil Rubio Bill couldn't be here tonight, but we met the backroom with our board and this whole band of Hispanic contractors and they said, we've got a goal. We want to create businesses that can compete in your world. Big general contractors is who we were. And build businesses that we can leave to our children. That was their goal. To do that, they formed the Hispanic contractors of Colorado. I asked our board if they would just let me give space to the HCC to give off a space for as long as it took to get them going. We went through three executive directors in about 93 years and none of them had any experience in running a nonprofit, in managing an organization. They didn't have membership lists, for example. Helga stepped in as founder there, never got a tax return filed for the Hispanic contract with Colorado. They didn't have a membership list. They didn't know organization. So they finally said, we're going to go out, hire a pro. And they hired Helga. She and I were office. 50 feet down the hall from each other for many, many years. And. She was in that office. You talk about her being at every meeting, night and day, all by herself. No assistance, just alcohol. She pulled this organization kicking and screaming into the 20th century, then got them all current with federal tax laws and everything else. And then she began to build the organization from which she launched all of these accomplishments. The Hispanic contractors in Colorado. I've heard all of you comment about how helpful she's been to the small minority business communities in the state of Colorado, basically, but primarily Denver. I want to give you some perspective on who else she helped. You mentioned it. Our general contractors and the Associated General Contractors were the ones that were subject to compliance with the minority ordinance. And we couldn't have done it without Helga because we we don't know. We put someone out for bid and however many build better 20, 30, 40. And when the ordinance was finalized, it required affirmative action, which required the big general contractors, the non minority contractors to meet certain goals, meet certain outreach efforts. And because of Helga's organization, which had a membership list and everything, we had a ready made Kadri of. Hispanic contractors primarily. But Helga and I had several. African-American contractors as well, and many women contractors. So we had a Kadri in the general contracting community of firms we could go to to solicit is in order to comply with the then new ordinance and. To the extent that Helga organized this so well. Our members, the general contractors suddenly had a source. To reach out to them, which would never have been possible. I hope that helped the national contractors as well, because now their compliance with the ordinance was made a lot easier and a lot more possible, and we owe it pretty much all to help them. So with that perspective also that they'll come up. Bill Garcia. Hi. My name is Bo Garcia. I'm a small business owner. I'm the president. Of Alcan Metals. And when Councilman News Office called me and asked if I would speak on behalf of the ALGA, I said I'd be more than happy to. Oh, I have some notes. I'd better take them out anyways. However, was hired as the executive director of Hispanic Contractors in 2000, and I was a board of directors at the time that we hired her, and I think it was the best move that Hispanic contractors ever made. Actually, she she was recruited and brought in some of agency into the agency, some of the largest construction companies in the country. She has sat on countless committees on behalf of us being our advocate. In 2004, when the voters of Colorado decided they passed a ballot initiative to pass the fast tracks light rail projects. One of the first projects that built was the West Corridor, and when they were building the West Quarter, a lot of the contractors were bidding that were bidding on that project. Were going out and looking. For small women owned and minority owned businesses to be part of their teams wanted to meet their goals for that were set aside for those purposes. Helga introduced or introduced the. Project manager on the West Corridor to my company. And he came over to my office. We had a conversation and after the conversation and several days passed, we signed an agreement that my company would become part of the of the Denver Transit Construction Group, J.B., the builders of the West Corridor. What that meant to me is that we had at that time was a $10 million contract. What I was able to do with those money was I was able to increase our workforce tenfold. I gained valuable experience. That I took to the Eagle P3 project, and from that project I took it to 225 and from 325 we went to the North Metro Project and we have done some work on every one of those projects with the funds that I've generated, which are in excess of $25 million over those three projects, I was able to fund payroll, pay taxes and insurance, pay off our suppliers, increase my line of credit with my. Bank and. Build a 6000 square foot fabrication and still distribution distribution warehouse. I just want to tell Helga that my business would not be worthy of today without the advocacy and the assistance of Helga. And I just want to say, Helga, thank you for everything. Good luck and God bless. Thank you so much. Thank you, Bill. Now go. Would you like to come up to say a few words? Well, thank you. It's a humbling experience to be recognized by all of these people. But in truth, all I've done is just pay it forward. I am an immigrant. Whose. Family came to this country and my father started a business and sent three girls to college. And it it's been a labor of love working with companies that could do the same thing. Thank you.

Recommendation to adopt resolution of the City Council of the City of Long Beach opposing bills or ballot measures that would weaken the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA).

LongBeachCC_02042014_14-0085

Clinical read item is a report from the city attorney with the recommendation to adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Long Beach, opposing bills or ballot measures that would weaken the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act. Mr. JOHNSON. Well, thank you, Mayor. I believe we have some folks who've come out tonight to speak both. I think we have some people from the medical community and the legal community. Can we go ahead and hear from the speakers? Would you like a motion, Mr.. Mayor, of a statement as to what way? Oh, sure. Well, you know, this is a very controversial issue. I know we've discussed it in the past. This is a state issue that's been debated for 39 plus years, will continue to be debated for many years to come. So I personally think that because there's no initiative that's qualified, there's really no reason for the city take a position . And I think we should just stay neutral, see if something qualifies and if it does qualify, we can come back, take the position. So with that, I go ahead and make a motion just to receive and file this item at this time. Moving. Seconded. Please come up. Those who wish to make a comment, please identify yourself. When you see the yellow light, it means you have 30 seconds to conclude. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor Foster. Council members, thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Tammy Smick and I am here to speak to you about our experience with Micra and to urge you to oppose any resolution that would support micra. This is our 20 year old son. Alexander Smick. He was born here in Long Beach in 1991. Alex died due to medical negligence on February 23rd, 2012, at an Orange County hospital under the care of Dr. Daniel Hedrick. Alex was prescribed and administered a lethal combination of medications that caused his death within hours of admission. Shockingly, after Alex was administered the combination of medications, he was left unmonitored without even a blood pressure check for over 7 hours. When he was finally checked on during morning rounds, Alex was found dead already in rigor mortis. After nearly six months, the Orange County coroner determine the cause of death poly acute drug intoxication. When we received the coroner's report, we thought that some governmental agency would leap to action and hold to account those responsible for our son's death . We were very wrong. What we discovered was that doctors and hospitals are very insulated from accountability. And we learned that if we wanted to hold the doctor and hospital accountable, we would have to seek legal action. We are not litigious people, but we wanted to make sure this horrific treatment would not happen to another innocent victim. And that's when we learned about micra. Alex was a college student studying to be a surgical technician. He wanted to work in the medical industry. Erotically the very industry that caused his death because he was not a wage earner. Michael limits the value of Alex's life at $250,000. Michael also limits access to the legal system because of the high cost of litigating a malpractise case. My husband and I have invested thousands of dollars to ensure we have our day in court and to fight for justice for Alex. Our fight is not with the many wonderful doctors who responsibly treat patients and save lives every day. But our fight is with this system that would rather protect dangerous doctors than protect patient safety. I implore you protect patient rights and oppose any resolution that would support my micra. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry for your loss. Thank you very much. And next, please. My name is Tim Smith. And I'm a very angry father. Alex was my son. And I'm here to urge you to oppose oppose any resolution that would support micra. I'm a father who grieves every single day over the loss of my son. I suffer constantly from the image of my son's cold, stiff and purple body as he lay dead in the hospital bed where he sought help. Alex died a preventable death at the hands of the medical professionals from whom he sought help as Alex was dragged to death in a hospital. And we are fighting to stop this tragedy from happening to another innocent victim. We only lost we not only lost our beloved son, but we have been victimized by micra. Micra has made our access to the legal system very difficult. Doctors take an oath to do no harm but when they do negligently harm patients they need to be held accountable. Patients and their families should not have to fight against an archaic law such as micra and multibillion dollar insurance companies when seeking accountability. Please do not rush to judgment in support of Micra. I urge you to contemplate this. Have $250,000. Was fair in 1975. How can that same amount be fair in 2014? Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You didn't council when it was Peter Mackler, who is the executive director of the Government of Communications and Public Policy for the Memorial Care Health System, which Long Beach Memorial, Miller Children's Hospital, Long Beach and Commune Hospital members. And I applaud Mr. Johnson in his opening comments a few moments ago that this is certainly a complex and difficult issue and telling our thoughts and prayers go out to the previous speakers. I am here actually to ask for your vote on the resolution on 14 to 8085 to oppose any changes to the Michael Law. The Act has served to keep health care costs in a state down and it does indeed stand as a national model. The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office estimates that the projected changes could cost local and state governments tens of millions of dollars if they attempt to quadruple the noneconomic damages becomes a reality. As severe a domino effect would take effect and affect. Each of our shared constituencies are bound to be affected at a time when every hospital an integrated health system such as memorial care, is facing unprecedented challenges due to considerable reductions in our reimbursements from Medicare and Medicaid and the prospect of higher health care costs due to an increased insurance premiums and more complex claims will certainly take its toll on communities to the cuts from the Affordable Care Act. Across the board sequestration reductions due to the sustainable growth rate, the memorial care health system is facing almost half a billion dollars in reduced payments over the next ten years. And despite these challenges, the three Long Beach based medical centers provided our communities, our shared constituents, with over $67 million of quantifiable community benefits in fiscal year 2015. And that includes over $17 million in charity care for the uninsured and the under-insured. And this also includes $33 million in local breast cancer screenings and prostate screenings and neonatal classes and such other community based programs. I mentioned the domino effect. If our rates were to increase, which they surely will, coupled with the federal and state decreases, no health care system in the state will be able to sustain community services at the current levels. If nothing else, if the cap goes up, so do our attorney's fees and the time needed to negotiate. And this is money that is desperately needed in the communities as memorial care health system. And every health care provider in the country is working hard to truly transform the way we deliver care in our communities . It is critically important that might not be changed. May Council I thank you for your time and I do ask for I vote on resolution 1485. Thank you. Thank you. Next. Good evening. I'm Tina Kim, assistant director of policy at the Community Clinic Association of Los Angeles County. Khaleesi represents 53 federally qualified health centers, community clinics and free clinics throughout Los Angeles County. Our members operate nearly 200 clinical sites throughout the county, providing medical, dental, mental health and pharmacy services to over 1 million and duplicate patients every year. The majority of whom are uninsured or underinsured. In Long Beach alone, eight clinical sites operated by three of our members alone serve over 38,000 patients annually and provided over 106,000 medical encounters in 2012. The vast majority of patients served by the clinics are low income. 69% live below the poverty line and 58% are uninsured. I'm here to urge the Council to adopts the resolution before you today with an eye vote. The trial lawyers push for a potential November ballot measure to change Medicare would significantly undermine clinics local efforts to continue providing much needed high quality care to the underserved. CCRC has been a longtime member of the coalition Californians allied for patient protection. We strongly support micra. It is fair and allows clinics to focus on the important task of providing health care to all of those who walk through the doors regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay. As the largest regional association of nonprofit community clinics and health centers in California, we do have a stake in the game when it comes to Micra. Surely changes in the law proposed by the trial lawyers will greatly impact the clinic's ability to keep doors open if the trial lawyers are successful. Increased lawsuits and higher attorney payouts come with a hefty price tag that not only affects local and state governments, but also affects the very patients clinics serve. Michael would be altered in a way that makes it easier to sue health care providers and triple lawyers legal fees in the process. Meanwhile, clinics will be forced to offset higher health care costs and medical liability rates by cutting expenses elsewhere, such as reducing hours, cutting staff or reduced services. This will only make us further out of reach to the people who need the health care our clinics provide. Therefore, it is important that you vote in support of the resolution. Thank you very much. Q Next, please. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Honorable Councilman. My name is David Kim. I'm a family physician in the medical director of the New America Medical Group Clinic off of Bellflower and Stearns in the former Borders bookstore. And I'm here tonight because we are in a time where, as a primary care doctor who is managing other primary care doctors, we're having a difficult time drawing primary care doctors into the field. And if this proposal to change micro limits goes through, it will make it even more difficult for us to draw quality care, primary care doctors to practice in the very areas of Southern California that we most need into practice and we are already experiencing. A real need and a dearth of primary care doctors to serve the communities, to be able to keep patients healthy, to keep them from becoming ill in the first place. And that's really a transition that we are feeling and moving toward in America. And I think anything that will make it more difficult for us to incentivize or to create an environment in which to allow those physicians to practice in the way they desire. And why we went into medicine, I think, will really hurt our cause and hurt our community to keep them healthy. I think the the very the increase in cost that any change in micro will bring will ultimately lead to a decrease in service to the very public that I think that this measure or this change to micro is proposing to protect. I think the fact that it. Comes across in a way that I think lacks integrity by throwing in this bill to measure and screen doctors for drug abuse and then kind of funneling in this change to make her afterwards. I was leaving a target the other day and someone asked me, would you want do you want to sign a petition to screen doctors for drugs and alcohol? Please sign this petition. And I said, no, thank you. But I think that there's such a more profound conversation behind that, that the public, I think, deserves to be engaged in. And I think for them to hide behind this initial sort of tagline and then expect it to be passed and slide this migraine behind the change in Medicare, behind it, I think, really is disingenuous. And so I really urge you to consider this thoughtfully and on behalf of the constituents that you serve and and the patients that I tried to keep healthy to really oppose any change to Micra. Thank you. Thank you, doctor. Thanks, blue. Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Council members. My name is Barry Thorpe. I've been a resident of Long Beach for 49 years, a resident of the fifth District for the past 23. I'm I'm here not to talk about what may or may not happen with Micra as it's changed or not. I'm I'm here to talk about what's happening in Long Beach today something that some of you may or may not be concerned be aware of other and that I'm I'm here because 119 days ago my sister Laura was a patient at Pacific Hospital in Long Beach. She was there on a non-threatening, non-surgical stay. And over the course of a few days, over repeated acts of negligence and neglect, she was given an overdose of medication. And over the next few days, went to multiple organ failure and died. At the time of my sister's death, two state lawmakers both expressed concerns about patient safety at Pacific Hospital. One of them, state Senator Labus, specifically stated that he was concerned about the mismanagement and mistreatment of patients and the potential for that. And it's not a potential because it happened. Now, the nice gentleman offered thoughts and prayers to some other people that spoke about their loss and thoughts and prayers and concern to lawmakers. I suggest do not substitute for viable legal remedy and you don't have that currently in a Micra with a $250,000 cap which is 25 years old . The amount of of deterrent value that this offered to the numerous people at Pacific that watched my sister decline and die and did nothing to stop it. It's meaningless. It's almost a cruel joke. It's an illusion of a remedy because we immediately encountered problems to even get an attorney that would be able to represent us and address the problems at Pacific because of the limitations of Micra and we worked hard to find one and we found a very good one and we were very lucky because we had the ability to do that. I'm sure other I'm sure other people are not as lucky. I would ask that there is no haste to, to to weigh in on this resolution, on this initiative before it's even qualified. Let the process work out. Let people hear both sides in Long Beach about whether or not it's appropriate to adjust micra for purposes of patient safety. I'm asking you to do that as as a citizen of the city and as a person who knows firsthand just very recently why this is something that really does need to be considered at length. Thank you. Thank you. Next, please. Hi. My name is Eric Andras. I actually sent you all an email this past week with a lot of. Information, and I hope you all were able to. Take a look at it. My sister, Cali Andrus. Was mentally. Retarded. She had the learning ability of a four year old, and I took her to the E.R. one night because she had a terrible stomach ache, and two days later she was dead from medical negligence. The hospital refused to give her any pain medication for 15 hours. The poor thing just sat and suffered in. Horrendous pain for 15. Hours. When they finally gave her medication, they gave her a drug called Dilaudid, which is seven times stronger than morphine. Even though she had only been. Prescribed a low dose of morphine shortly before they gave her the Dilaudid, they gave her a radioactive beverage to drink for an unnecessary CT scan. Because of the sedative effect of the Dilaudid, she ended up aspirating that radioactive beverage into her lungs, which caused pulmonary edema and sent her into cardiac arrest. The hospital was under the wrong assumption that my. Sister was a DNR. A do not resuscitate. So while she was laying there in cardiac arrest, they were standing there doing nothing. When they finally realized that they were wrong. They called a code blue and they were able to bring her back 17 minutes later. But it was too late. She was nearly. Brain dead by that time. This is when I finally learned about Michael. I had never heard of such a thing. 38 years this law has been on the books and I've never even heard of Micra. When I tried to get a lawyer it took me over eight months to get a lawyer to take my case and it only I only ended up getting one because I started advocating for patient safety. Over a dozen lawyers turned our case down. And this is what everybody that's that's going through medical negligence these days is going to. My sister had no husband. She had no work. She had no children. So she only qualifies for the $250,000 cap. So what lawyer is going to take that? It costs sometimes $100,000 and in fees to bring a court case. Then you've got $75,000 in lawyer fees. You've got to take that out of the 250,000 before a victim can even see any more money. And then that's in 1970 $5. By the time $75,000 is left in 1970 $5, it works out to about $17,000. That's what a medical negligence victim gets these days because of micra. It's a horrible law. I've actually been in contact with senator barry keene who wrote the law in 1975. He has come out and he has written a statement and I sent you all the link to this and he is also for raising the cap. He wrote the law and he's for raising the cap. So I beg of you all please do not support anything that has to do with with promoting Micra. It's a terrible law and it's really affecting a lot of people who are suffering from medical negligence. Thank you. Thank you. Next please. Hello. My name's Betty Brown. I'm here because of my sister, Tamara Walter. That passed away four years ago from medical negligence. She went into the went into the clinic for a minor procedure and 20 minute procedure. And never came out. They ended up putting her in a room. A recovery room, forgot her, and she suffocated. As the other gentleman said, too, I wasn't even aware of my crew if we went out to try and get help to see attorneys to to make some changes and couldn't get any help. I happened to have the opportunity to go to Sacramento a couple of years ago and work on the SB 100 and we bill and we got it passed, which is to improve the standards at the clinics and hospitals, which I hope helps because of the limitations with Medicare. It's very hard to get any type of, you know, help with attorneys. And my sister also was single, had no children. So her life wasn't worth much either. You know, the last two, the rest of the families just horrendous. Please. You know, a. You know, we have to make change to make. We have to see people, you know, in the future. And the only way that's going to do it is if we are able to hold the doctors and whoever accountable. And unfortunately, the only way to hold them accountable is financially they don't care. You know, it's and there's a lot of great doctors out there, you know, just the few that don't care. Hopefully if we make changes that will affect them anyways. I mean, other than just being a victim of the medical negligence, we're also you know, we're a victim with with with the micro, you know, with not being able to to do anything. So. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Byrne. Next with. My name is Dr. Carlos Martinez. I'm a local ophthalmologist. I have been in practice here for the last 13 years, and I have served as chairman of ophthalmology at Memorial. I have served a quality assurance on memorial quality assurance in Los Alamitos at Reagan Street Surgery Center. So I am interested in taking the bad apples out of the community, and I have done everything I can. And the truth is that every one of our colleagues and every one of the cases that I've reviewed have always been about caring doctors, trying to do their best in a field that is incredibly difficult. But the answer to the problem is not changing. Micro. Micro. There are no caps for gross negligence. There are no caps or economic damages. So the idea that raising the cap for pain and suffering would lead to a resolution or would lead to taking those who have made mistakes or acts of negligence out of the field is just not the case. If I thought that that would solve that issue, I would support changes to micro, but I don't think that's actually a factor in the whole equation. So I support the resolution that you have come up with supporting micro, and I invite everybody to have a discussion about how to solve the issues. Thank you. Thank you. Next, please. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Members of the council. My name is Victor Christie. With Californians Allied for patient protection. I'm here to urge your support of the resolution to support micro micro works. Any change to Micra will only jeopardize the citizens of Long Beach and all Californians ability to access quality health care. It is wrong to increase health care costs for every citizen of this state, especially now at a time when we are implementing the Affordable Care Act. We cannot return to the crisis that led to the passage of micra where the san jose mercury news then stated that insurance rates will peril medical care in the Los Angeles Times stated then that doctors face an insurance crisis which will affect 8000 in the Southland. Yes, regrettably, there are individual tragic cases of medical negligence that no one ever, ever wants to see. But this is not the way to do it. Changing Micra is not the solution. That is why we have a broad based coalition of community health centers, public safety positions, labor, the Department of Public Health of Los Angeles County and more than a thousand others to support micra. I respectfully urge and I vote please protect access to health care. Thank you. Thank you. Next please. Good evening, Mr. Mayor and council members. My name is James Ah Christie. No relation to the last speaker. I have been a resident of Long Beach for over 20 years. I'm an attorney and my law firm represents victims of medical negligence. One case that we to give you an example of the kinds of cases that I that I see. I represented the parents of a 25 day old baby who went to the hospital with sepsis and high fever and five days later was about to be released. The physician said he's he's going to be okay. Let's release him. The mother said, I'm not going to take him home. You can see he's jittering. The baby had symptoms of seizure all these five days that he was in the hospital on that last day that the physician decided he would needed an emergency MRI of this infant rushed him down to the MRI room. The baby went into cardiac arrest and resulted in brain death at 30 days old. We won that arbitration. But the most that it was available to that family, those those parents was 250,000, not apiece, but for both of them together. And this is a couple they still go to the park every birthday with a birthday cake to commemorate Jayden's birth. But I'd really like to speak about the people who can't get a lawyer who are victims of medical negligence. And I see them all the time and my heart really goes out to them. They can't get a lawyer because the cap is too low and the economics don't work out. Is so expensive to litigate the medical negligence case, they cannot find a lawyer to represent them. That's why it's socially responsible to lift the microcap. It's going to provide access to justice. It's going to make physicians more responsible for the care they give. And I respectfully urge a no vote on this resolution. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Nicholas Domingo. I did not know that this issue was on the agenda today, and I'm not prepared to talk about it. I am in the medical care field and. I make my living by that. Also, I had a mother who died in a local hospital. She stated in front of witnesses that she wanted to live and that she wanted treatment. And despite that fact, a DNR was placed on her without authorization. The only person that could. In the world. Agreed to that DNR was me and I didn't even know about it was placed without authorization. And then she was denied treatment even. Which would have been given to a deranged patient. She needed to be on a ventilator. And she died. And there were many, many other gross and embarrassing mistakes. I don't know any of these people here. I don't know these two people who suffered the loss of their son. I've never seen them before. But the things that they experienced I encountered ten years ago. I don't have an agenda at this time. I do not have a lawsuit. That was years ago. I do know that that hospital probably spent over $1,000,000 on attorney's fees. And they're saying there's no money. There is money. Like in most other aspects of the world. Businesses are money driven. Anyway, at the very end, I watched my mother suffocate. And. The nurse at this hospital knew that that was happening and didn't even stand up because at that point she was a legitimate DNR because there was no more treatment for her. And she suffocated. And then they tried to usher me out of the room so that they could withdraw the medical devices and carry me out so they could get on with business. It's very, very difficult to obtain an attorney because of money. But the hospitals can afford high priced attorneys. And they do. And again, I get no penny for this. I have no agenda, no lawsuit. Thank you. Thank you. Next. Mr. Mayor, council members, I thank you for a brief minute. My name is John Hinman. I live in Long Beach. I live in the second district. I'm a small business owner in the third district. I employ two employees who live in the second district and I believe the fifth District. I practice medical malpractise defense for four years in Long Beach at a prominent defense firm and I now practice medical Malpractise plaintiffs work along with Social Security, disability, employment, and a variety of other things. I have to tell you that I urge you strongly to get all of the opinions of all of your constituents and the people who really know what's going on about this before you make a decision. I think that's most important. I have two brief comments. First of all, I think that the bar to filing medical malpractise cases is the fact that you need experts to come out and say that there was medical negligence. That is a huge bar to filing these cases. And I think to claim that the $250,000 cap is the real bar to filing these cases is not necessarily the reality. Second of all, I want you to know that I have, in my short four months of representing plaintiffs, have had to have several tearful conversations with folks who have clear liability cases. But because of the complexity of their situation and the 250 cap, I was unable to represent them. These folks had consulted with five, ten, 15 lawyers. I was literally their last line of somebody who could potentially take the case, and I had to, through my own tears in theirs, tell them, no, this is real. This is the real situation that's happening all the time. Please get all of the facts before you make a decision. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next. Mayor Foster, members of the council. My name is John Blumberg. I've been an attorney in this city for 39 years, and my office has been across the street in Long Beach for all of that time. And before that, my father's law firm was in this city since 1955. I'm on the Long Beach Symphony Executive Committee. Your children, your wives, your husbands, your family. They've been calling me for medical malpractise advice for many years. And there are many, many, many terrible stories that I hear every day, every week. This is an issue which is a complex issue. Medical malpractise law is among the most difficult to practice. Expert witnesses are necessary before a case can ever get past the first step. The medical the medical lobby, the insurance companies would be much better off if there are artificial limitations on the compensation that people can receive from medical malpractise cases. However, those who are victims of medical malpractise cases should have the right to be compensated in an amount which is commensurate with what they have suffered. This is neither frivolous nor is it meritless. It is simply a matter of what is appropriate compensation and what was appropriate compensation 38 years ago is not appropriate compensation now . If it was fair 38 years ago to set a $250,000 limit on the recovery of a life of pain, of suffering, of misery, if it was fair 38 years ago, it could not be fair now. And so you are the representatives of the city of Long Beach, of the citizens of the city of Long Beach. And I think that it would be most prudent, since there is no initiative at this time, most prudent not to take a position and never to take a position because this is a matter to be debated. It's a matter to be discussed. And it's a matter that perhaps if an initiative ultimately does qualify for the ballot to allow the political, nonpolitical and sociological debate to take place in the city, with the city council not taking a position where the citizens of the city of Long Beach essentially are told that this is how your representatives feel about the issue. And I would join those who say it is appropriate not to take a position at this time. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I want to thank everyone that's come to speak on this issue today. It is very heart wrenching, all of your experiences. And I'm sorry I can't see you over there, but I do want to thank you for coming. Where I'm coming from on this issue and certainly where I believe seven of our council members we had eight council members here last week. Seven of the eight are coming from on. This is really an access to to health care issue. The Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act has protected patients and our health care network for over 35 years in California. We've heard from our medical professionals right here from Long Beach coming to speak on that. And I'm asking our council colleagues, my council colleagues to consider that Long Beach memorial while Molina health care was not here. They are a home based health care provider here serving health care to really the less visible among us, serving those that aren't able to afford the health care that each of us here are able to. And so we have to consider that micros original purpose is still relevant today to ensure that injured patients are fairly compensated, medical liability rates are kept in check, and physicians and clinics can remain in practice treating patients, driving physicians out of the practice, especially those that are good physicians, the ones that intend to do right every single day does not serve our families, does not serve Californians. The Troy and Alana Park Patient Safety Act of 2014 is a ballot measure that is attempting to qualify for the November ballot with potentially significant impacts to the community and our city. California's own Legislative Analyst's has reviewed the proposed ballot measure and determined that the likelihood of cost. Increases to state and local governments is substantial by eroding micro's protections to increase lawsuit payouts. The ballot measure will hurt community clinics. We have many community clinics here. It will hurt doctors and hospitals and for the purposes of this council's consideration. Also, increased costs and lower sales tax revenue to the city as the costs of employer malpractise suits and health care policies go up and our residents expendable consumer income goes down. Small percentage increases in our cost of doing business could have an exponential impact on our future budgets. As I commented at our January meeting, yes, it was our January meeting. I believe that our city should join the more than 800 organizations including hospitals, community clinics, county and city governments, business and taxpayer groups, labor unions and members of public safety that support Micra and oppose any changes. As I said earlier, I'm coming at this in order to protect access to health care for all but really for those of us who are less visible in our communities. And it's important to restate what was said earlier by one of our speakers that there is no cap here for gross negligence. We are still allowed unlimited economic damages for past and future medical costs, unlimited damages for lost wages, lifetime earning potential, and any other economic losses. Micro only impacts. The punitive I'm sorry, the noneconomic damages and caps. The noneconomic damages. That to 50, there's unlimited punitive damages. And so with that, I ask my colleagues to stay the course from our direction and our action last week and vote no on this receive and file motion. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Council membership scheme. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to thank the people who came forward and talk today. And I'm extremely sorry for your losses. You know, I'm a registered nurse practitioner, an attorney, so I kind of work in both worlds. I also am on the California Medical Board, and I would urge you and anyone here, because a lot of people don't know this, that if you have if you believe that a physician has been negligent, please file with the medical board, make a complaint. I spend roughly about three days a week reviewing cases that are given to the medical board. We do them online about physicians that are being disciplined. So the board is extremely active. We take it very seriously. And when a hospital senses an 805 report, which they're required under law to give us when a physician has been negligent , we take that very seriously as well. So I encourage the public to use that venue. But that being said to individuals, I think the point that I would like to support is that they have this kind of issue on a consent agenda without really having a lot of public input. I don't think serves as well at all about this initiative. What I would like to do is make a substitute motion that we send this issue to our state legislation committee so that we can have further public comment and review, and then the ledge committee can make a recommendation to the full city council on it. And by that time, hopefully we will have a clarification about the language, the potential language or what is moving forward. And the city council can actually take a more informed position. So I make that motion. It's been moved and seconded. Mr. DELONE Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It's my understanding the original motion was to receive a file and now we have a substitute to send it to state. Loj Is that correct? Well, I know that there's a second meeting now. We've had some pretty significant discussion on this and I think what I'd like to do is make a substitute substitute to support the original recommendation to adopt the resolution. Second. Okay. That's in order. Mr. JOHNSON. Well, thank you, Mayor. I want to thank everyone from both sides this very heated argument for coming tonight. But I think the question that has not been answered, that's been asked over and over again, I ask this question and many of you have asked the question is simple. If $250,000 was the right number in 1975, why is it the right number today? How long are we going to wait? Are going to wait 50 years when $203,000 buys 10% of what it does today, or he does not believe in pain and suffering damages. If that's the case, let's just say it. Let's just say that there should be no pain and suffering damages. But to basically let inflation do what we're not willing to do ourselves, which is to help victims and their families, that you have no access to justice is wrong. I think, simply put, we know in all of our policy areas, we constantly look at CPI adjustments. There's no reason not to do it here. So I oppose the motion because while I think we should kill this outright, I think Councilwoman Shipley has a good point, which that this does deserve more consideration from all sides and from all perspectives. And I would certainly support going to the legislative committee. All right, members, we have a motion on the floor to support the original motion. Members, cast your votes on that motion. You know, in this day and age community. They want it in the state budget committee. The motion carries five votes. Three votes no. All right. Thank you. Thank you all who testified and appreciate that the motion has passed. Your Honor, my name is Mark Werth. I'm sorry. I'm here for the first time. I did not see what the recorded vote was. Five three. Right there, right on the board. Okay. And that motion is to approve the original? That is correct. Thank you. Okay. You're out of order. So if you have a question, you can do it offline. Okay. All right. Thank you. And we have you have a question. See that gentleman right at the end right there? Mr. Barkin, I'm happy to do that. That means the original motion, I guess, to support the microphone position has been adopted by the council. Thank you. Item 23, Will.

Recommendation to declare urgency ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending Section 10.32.110 relating to Preferential Parking District "U"; declaring the urgency thereof; and declaring that this ordinance shall take effect immediately, read and adopted as read. (Ordinance No. ORD-17-0018). (District 4)

LongBeachCC_08222017_17-0718

Communication from City Attorney. Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code relating to preferential parking district. You declaring the urgency there thereof and. Declaring that this ordinance shall take effect immediately. Read for the first time and lead over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading District Court. Mr. City Attorney. Thank you, Mayor. This item. We will need two votes, one on the urgency, and then one on the parking district itself. The urgency allows us to implement the parking restrictions before the start of Cal State Long Beach. All right. I'll do public comment for both items. Casey, no public comment for either item. There's a who's made the motion superhot and Andrews is the second. A roll call vote, please. Councilwoman Gonzalez. Councilmember Pierce. Councilwoman Price. Councilmember. Super Now. Councilwoman Mongo. Councilman Andrews. Councilmember. Here I go. Councilman Austin. Vice Mayor Richardson. Okay, great. That concludes item ten doing. We're doing. Yes. I'm sorry. The second one, councilmember supernova. And. We're taking the second vote. In second vote right now on the actual parking improvement district. Council. Yeah, we want to move this under urgency due to the start of this is that we're talking about now. Yes, the vote the first vote was on the urgency. This vote is on the parking district itself. Okay. Yeah, this is a parking parking district adjacent to Cal State, Long Beach. And unanimous votes by the residents. Okay. There's a motion by Councilmember Hooper now and Vice me Richardson and Rockport Councilman Gonzalez. Councilmember Pearce. Councilwoman Price. Councilmember. Super Now. Councilwoman Mongo. Councilman Andrews. Councilmember, you're on the High Council. All right. Vice Mayor Rich. Okay. We're going to go ahead and do new business as the announcements.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; authorizing execution of agreements for up to 30 buildings, including buildings participating in the City’s 2030 Challenge High Performance Existing Building Pilot, for the purchase and/or sale of energy occurring as part of the Energy Efficiency as a Service pilot projects with a contract length of up to 20 years to test the viability of providing Energy Efficiency as a Service as part of the utility’s pay for performance program.

SeattleCityCouncil_04092018_CB 119225

Agenda item 14. Agenda Item 14. Constable 119225. Link to the satellite department authorizing execution of agreements for up to 30 buildings, including building participating in the city's 2030 challenge high performance existing building project pilot for the purchase and or sale of energy occurring as part of the energy efficiency as a service pilot projects with a contract length of up to 20 years to test the viability of providing energy efficiency as a service. As part of the utility's pay for performance program, the committee recommends the bill passes amended. And councilmember said, I'm aware you have an amendment, so go ahead and speak through the base legislation and the amendment altogether, and then we'll do a formal motion on the amendment. Wonderful. Thank you, Mr. President. Again, I want to thank the committee for their work on this and the entire coalition and community that came forward to advocate for this legislation. What we have in front of us is a combination of language that came from the coalition, from Seattle City Life and from the community at large, who wants to make sure that as we create the ability to have a greener energy economy, that when we create green, efficient buildings, that we're also creating opportunities for folks to have access to good living wage jobs in this new green energy economy. The language that you have in front of you enhances some of the legislation that we discussed in committee that last week with an effort to aim to increase the number of individuals who are working on these sites with apprenticeship. Criteria, credentials, the number of individuals who are coming forward to participate in our prevailing wage opportunities, the number of individuals who are coming forward as both workers and contractors who are from women and minority owned businesses. This is a really great opportunity and I think we're leading by example not only with creating a green energy economy, but making sure more people have access to these good living wage jobs. We know that historically the folks who are most affected by climate change are those who've done the least to cause it, especially low wage workers, women and people of color who often live on the margins and are more likely to suffer the consequences of climate change . So what we're doing today, I think, is really forward looking, very inclusive, and I'm excited to work with our council on this. Thank you, Councilmember Mosquito. So, Councilmember Skinner, would you like to make a formal motion to amend Section five? I move that we amend Section five with the proposed legislation that is in front of you. Okay. To move moving second to amend section five as stated by councilmember skater. All those in favor of the amendment please vote i. I opposed the have a minute piece of legislation. Councilmember Skate, did you have any further words on this legislation? Well, Mr. President, I apologize for not asking you about this beforehand, but I wondered if we might suspend the rules to see if Dennis has any comments that you'd like to add before we vote on this as well. If there's no objection, we could hear from Mr. Hayes for a few moments to grace us with a few words of wisdom on this legislation. Thank you for letting me put you on the spot, Mr. Hayes. No problem. But the 22nd clock on him, please. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Council. I think that all of the most important things have already been said by Councilmember Mosquito. The one addition that I would make as someone who's been in this field now for well in excess of four decades, almost always when you're dealing with something that enhances the greenness or the efficiency of buildings, it's a zero sum game. Somebody pays, somebody receives, somebody wins. Somebody loses. This particular energy efficiency as a service approach, which we used to refer to as Meets and Cantlie, this is a better name for it is one where everybody wins. The tenants get a much better building. The landlord gets a reasonable return on its investment. The utility continues to make a rate of return. And all of the other utility ratepayers who would have to pay something if we were not to get new energy supplies instead of investing in efficiencies, keep their rates low. And of course, there are those very high quality jobs that come out of it as well. It's win, win, win across the board. And I'm delighted that the council seemed favorably disposed toward it. Thank you, sir. Okay. Well, I think that's a good segue into a vote. Please call the roll on the passage of the bill. Gonzales, i. Herbold, i. Johnson Mosquera i. O'Brien Sergeant. President. Harrell All right. Seven in favor and unopposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. All right, please read agenda item number 15.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute all amendments and documents necessary to increase the aggregate total contract authority for existing firms currently under contract: Kleinfelder West Inc. (Local), Ninyo and Moore Corp., Group Delta Consultants Inc., Psomas Corp., Twining Inc. (Local), Totum Corp. (Local), Ghirardelli Associates Inc. (Local), and Willdan Engineering, (none MBE/WBE) for as-needed certified materials testing and inspection, and construction management services by $2,000,000, for a revised total not to exceed $10,000,000, and to extend the term of each contract to January 31, 2015. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_01072014_14-0025

Councilmember Johnson, please. Thank you. Motion carries nine votes 21. So recommendation authorizes city manager to execute amendments and documents necessary for existing firms to provide as needed certified materials testing, inspection and construction for the public works department in an amount not to exceed $10 million. So moved. In motion. The second councilmember don't object up for. This I did queue up. I know Mr. Cousins waited all night for this, so thank you. Sorry that it took so long. I wanted to just share that. I'm very pleased to see this contract before the Council, and I commend our staff and our community partners for sticking with this project. Despite the ups and downs. And the wrong. On one stage, I think that I'll be 21 or 20 to work. 21. We're on 21. I'm sorry. I just I saw a quick. No. No, we voted on 21. I agree with you. Now on. 22. 21. Okay. I think we've we already did, too. I thought we did. Yeah, I made the motion, it was seconded and then we moved to 22. I don't believe so. Mr.. Yeah. Mr.. Kirk G. Again on 21, I. Believe one I really want 21. We moved on. Go ahead. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. So we're on item 21. So Councilor Broke put you on the on the next one. No, we're in 20. You. Right. So there's no any public comment on item 21. Seen the public comment and 21, please cast your vote. Yes. Motion carries nine votes. Item 2222 is a recommendation about plans and specifications for the improvement of Pine Avenue between Seaside Way and Ninth Street. An award of contract to all American asphalt in an amount not to exceed $5.091 million and authorize city manager to execute an agreement with city lighting power for the provision of well, I can't

AN ORDINANCE relating to the ground lease between The City of Seattle and Experience Music Project authorized under Ordinance 118336; authorizing the Seattle Center Director to execute a second amendment to the ground lease.

SeattleCityCouncil_08102015_CB 118459

The bill passes and the chair will sign it. The Report of the Parks Seattle Center, Libraries and Gender Pay Equity Committee. Please read Item nine. The Report of the Park Seattle Center Libraries and Gender Pay Equity Committee Agenda Item nine Council Bill 118459 Relating to the ground lease between the City of Seattle and Experience Music Project authorized under Ordinance 118336 authorizing the Seattle Center director to execute a Second Amendment to the ground lease. The committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you, Councilmember Gordon. This legislation allows for the amending of the ground lease of the experienced music project. The new lease terms are consistent with the Seattle Center's nonprofit long term lease guidelines. It will bring about great things at the center, including many amazing public benefits for youth in the community, such as music therapy, camp, city of music, career day all day, and the hip hop residency program and the hip hop residency program. Youth are actually compensated for their time learning about art and pursuing their own artistic development instead of having to choose between completing this program and working on a summer job. I really look forward to see what other public benefits the MP will provide in addition to those already offered. The new agreement will also provide many opportunities at the center now and down the road. Thank you. Questions or comments? Please call a role on the passage of the bill. Back shot. I got it. I. I look at it. I. O'Brien. Hi. Okamoto, i. So what i. And President Burgess in favor and. And opposed the bill passes and the chair will sign it. Is there any other business to come before the council? So we will adjourn now at 846 and we will reconvene in 5 minutes as the Select Committee on Affordable Housing. Thank you.

A resolution approving a proposed Contract between the City and County of Denver and Impact Charitable for Disaster Relief Funding during the COVID-19 health crisis. Approves a contract with Impact Charitable for $750,000 and through 12-30-20 to administer the Left Behind Workers fund to provide cash assistance to Denver residents who were previously employed and lost such employment due to the COVID-19 pandemic, citywide (HRCRS-202054745). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 5-29-20. Councilmember Kniech approved filing this item on 6-4-20.

DenverCityCouncil_06082020_20-0534

You're done on this one, Councilmember. Yes. Okay. Thank you. And thank you, Skye, for pinch hitting on short notice there. We appreciate it. Madam Secretary, if you please put the next item on our screens. Council Member Kennedy I believe this one belongs to you. 534. Thank you, Mr. President. It does. Just to comment tonight. As our nation is appropriately focused on the history of racism and its impacts on black lives. The bill that is before us tonight in front of you is the resolution approving a contract that helps to mitigate harm experienced by another community that has also faced bias and exclusion . If we think about the thriving city that we lived in prior to COVID. Hotel workers, restaurant workers, janitors, cleaning buildings, window washers, many of the jobs that were impacted during the crisis, they were held by those who are left out of many of the systems in our country because of their immigration status or because of how they've been categorized by the federal government. These folks pay taxes and they helped our city thrive, but they're now unable to access the relief that has been set up for other workers. They can't access unemployment insurance or they've been excluded from the CARES Act. Now, these workers face the same challenges with housing, with food, getting a cell phone bill paid so that they can keep in contact with their loved ones, their doctor or their employer to be called back to work. So the city is investing in a left behind worker fund that will help $1,000 per eligible worker to help them with their emergency COVID relief. This bill was a partnership between the mayor's office, the Human Rights and Community Partnerships Team, and my office, and many community partners who really helped to bring this issue to the forefront and tell us the stories of the impacted workers. So I want to thank the immigrant defense table that was represented by the Colorado People's Alliance, by SEIU Local 105 and by together Colorado. And I want to help the folks who created the Left Behind Worker Fund. We are not the first ones at this party. The Left Behind Worker Fund was put together by two co advisors, Marc Newhouse and Katrina van Gas, and I would like to thank them personally. This is a passion project for them. They're not paid for this work, but they attracted funders together and said, Let's pool our resources to make an impact. Foundations like the Denver Foundation and the Rose Foundation and the Open Society Foundation put their dollars in to help attract our dollars and to help make a bigger impact for workers. And so I would like to urge other local governments in the metro area and across the state to consider supporting their residents who've been left behind from federal and state programs, just like Denver's doing. And I'd like to encourage other foundations to continue to grow their investments. And lastly, you can contribute individually to the Left Behind Worker Fund. If you got one of those CARES checks and maybe you didn't do anything special to earn it, and you were able to keep your job through this crisis and you didn't need it to pay your bills. Think about contributing a portion of it to workers who were left behind. You can find a link on their website. I want to thank my colleagues, each of whom took time to get briefed on this program, which was a direct file. Under our current crisis, we try to move things as quickly as possible to get them to the hands of those who are suffering. And so thank you for your cooperation in bringing this investment forward as quickly as we could. And it will be administered by community partners who will directly outreach to trusted communities to be able to identify those who may be eligible and get them applied and screened as quickly as possible. So I want to thank all the partners who made this possible and say, I'm very proud of our city for standing in the gap and mitigating the exclusion that has occurred due to federal policy, particularly. And along with Councilwoman Torres, this earlier comment, may I pray that Dakota recipients don't need this assistance because our Supreme Court will honor their role in our economy and in our communities. But should they need it, this fund would be there for them if they get left behind in the future. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. All right, Madam Secretary, the next item on our screens and Councilmember Flynn. This one we need to put on the floor. So will you please put Council Resolution 231 on the floor?

AN ORDINANCE accepting various deeds for street or alley purposes; laying off, opening, widening, extending, and establishing portions of rights-of-way; placing the real property conveyed by said deeds under the jurisdiction of the Seattle Department of Transportation; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. (This ordinance concerns the following rights-of-way: the alley in Block 85, D. T. Denny’s Home Addition to the City of Seattle; the alley in Block J, Bell’s 5th Addition to the City of Seattle; the alley in Block 34, Second Addition to the Town of Seattle as laid off by the Heirs of Sarah A. Bell (deceased) (Commonly known as Heirs of Sarah A. Bell’s 2nd Addition to the City of Seattle); the alley in Block 4, Pettit’s University Addition to the City of Seattle; the alley in Block 106, David T. Denny’s First Addition to North Seattle; the alley in Block 12, North Seattle; the alley in Block 4, South Park; the alley in Block “G,” 4th Addn to the City of Seattle as laid off by Wm. N. Bell; the alley in Block 5, Denny-Fuhrman Addition to the City of Seattle; North 135th Str

SeattleCityCouncil_05282019_CB 119521

Bill passed and show sign it. The next agenda item. Agenda item four cancel 119 521. Excepting various deeds for street or rally purposes, committee recommends the bill pass. That's why. I'm Brian. Councilmember Harrell. I'm going to speak to the next six items together. I can speak to them and then read them in one at a time or whatever is best for you. So why don't you speak to them all? And then I'll have the clerk go back and read. Each one individual will vote on them individually. So these next six items, folks, there are six separate ordinances, each excepting various deeds or easements for 20 parcels. So the six bills combined, it's about 120 property or easements changes. We've talked about this few times, but for the public, I'll just state that oftentimes in a new development or redevelopment, there's minor changes to property lines that need to be made. Where the city will will acquire additional right away or other easements for access. These parcels are often very small, maybe a couple of square feet to allow the proper width of a driveway or sidewalk or other easement or access to sometimes utilities in those types of things. There's a requirement in our charter that whenever we do something with property, it has to come to city council. But on these small things, we let the department accumulate 20 at a time to put them in a bill because of the pace of construction in our city. We were in the last few years have been seeing multiple ordinances at a time with 20 and this is a rather big one, but all fairly straightforward. Okay. So that's number. That's all of them. But. Well, I'll just. You've already read number four into the record will vote on that and you could just read the other ones. And so. Okay. Any comments on agenda item number, section number six, I guess, but I can't see Bill 119521. Any other comments? Please call the rule on the passage of the bill. Whereas. O'Brien High. Pacheco I so want I make sure. Gonzalez I. Herbold, I. President Harrell All right. Eight in favor and unopposed. The bill passed show sign it. And then Madam Clerk, just read the item in. And if you need to make comments about an individual individual one just sort of speak up. Otherwise I'm just going to vote on them since Councilmember O'Brien described them all. Go ahead, Madam Clerk. Agenda item five Council Bill 119522 Accepting 20 limited purposes. Easements for public sidewalks, street or Alley Street excuse me. Street and alley turn around. And Traffic Signal Purposes Committee recommends the bill pass. Any questions? Please call the rule on the passage of the bill or else. O'Brien Pacheco. I. Want to make sure. Gonzalez I. Herbold, I. President Arroyo high eight in favor and unopposed. Bill passes and chair of Senate Judiciary. The next one. Agenda item six counts about 119 523. Accepting various deeds for street or alley purposes. Can we recommend the bill pass? Okay. If there are no questions, please call the rule on the passage of the bill. Suarez O'Brien. Pacheco, I. Sergeant Bagshaw. Gonzalez Herbold, I. President Harrell high eight in favor and unopposed. Bill passenger assignment. Please read the next one. Agenda Item seven Council Bill 119 524 Accepting 20 limited purposes easements for public sidewalk, alley or street and alley turnaround purposes committee recommends the bill pass. There are no questions. Please call the rule on the passage of the bill. Suarez O'Brien. Pacheco. I saw on fascia. Hi. Gonzales I herbold. Hi. President Harrell I aid in favor and unopposed. Bill pass and chair of Senate. Please read the next one. Agenda item eight Countable 119 525. Accepting various deeds for street or alley purposes, the committee recommends the bill pass through. No questions. Please call the rule on the passage of the bill. Suarez O'Brien I Pacheco. I. So on i Bexar Gonzalez I Herbold President Harrell I aid in favor and unopposed. Bill passed and chair of Senate. Please read the next one. Agenda item nine Accountable 119 526 Accepting various deeds for street your alley purposes committee recommends the bill pass. The no questions. Please call the roll on the passage of the bill. Whereas I O'Brien I Pacheco. I. Sergeant I Bagshaw Gonzalez I Herbold I President Harrell I aid in favor and unopposed. Bill passenger assignment. Please read the next one. Constable Constable 119 526 excepting various deeds for street or alley purposes, the committee recommends the bill pass. If there are no questions, please call the roll on the passage of the bill. Whereas I O'Brien, I Pacheco. I. Sergeant Major Gonzalez, i herbold II President Harrell II it in favor and unopposed. Bill passed. Sure. Sign it. Please be the next one.

AN ORDINANCE amending the Seattle Comprehensive Plan to incorporate changes proposed as part of the 2016-2017 Comprehensive Plan annual amendment process.

SeattleCityCouncil_10022017_CB 119027

The Report of the Planning, Planning and Zoning Committee Agenda Item five Council Bill 1190 27 amended the Seattle Comprehensive Plan to incorporate changes proposed as part of the 2016 through 2017 Comprehensive Plan. Annual Amendment Process Committee recommends the bill passes amended. So this is the committee that I chair and once a year we adopt changes to the comprehensive plan. There was a couple of amendments that were discussed in committee. One was related to making some specific changes to the description of the Chinatown International District based on the community feedback that we'd heard through the Chinatown International District zoning changes. And the second was an amendment to parks and open space elements. Councilmember O'Brien, you spent a lot of time working on that parks and open space element, and I wanted to give you the chance to speak about it, if you like. But I'm not seeing you jump for a microphone. Okay. One of the other issues that was discussed, both a lot in committee and then also again today in public comment was the issue of future land use map amendment sizes. We did some robust work there and as you may have heard during public comments, chose not to bring forward an amendment that would make a specific change to a vigilante stamp in the Beacon Hill neighborhood. There was a consensus among the committee that that was a great project, a project that all of us on committee liked and appreciated, particularly their commitment to choosing to perform through our mandatory housing affordability program. But when we did the analysis about what sort of scope changes would be required for us to then make requisite size size changes to the future land use map, that that was a precedent that maybe that change was too small of a change for us to make and dig that deep down into the future land use map. So we neglected to bring that amendment forward, although that was a project that I think all of us supported and look forward to seeing. It's future development of I'm not overstepping my bounds, but I'm looking at my colleagues and I'm not seeing any significant objection. OC Any further discussion about the comprehensive plan. I'm not seeing any great boards and it's yours. So with that, I'd move to pass Council Bill 119027 for the discussion. Okay. And ask the court to please call the roll on the passage of the bill. Flores O'BRIEN All right. So what I John Gonzalez, purple Johnson high seven in favor not opposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. I'd ask the court to please call to please read agenda item number six, the short title.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute a First Amendment to Agreement No. 33371 with the Long Beach Public Transportation Company to extend the Agreement for six months to provide sufficient time to optimize the Belmont Shore Employee Rider Pass Program elements in anticipation of a long-term amendment. (District 3)

LongBeachCC_02232016_16-0179

Motion carries. Excited Report from Economic and property development. Recommendation to execute a First Amendment to agreement with Long Beach Transit. To extend the agreement for six months to provide sufficient time to optimize the Belmont Shore Employee Rider Pass Program City District three. There's a motion and a second. Councilman Price, did you have any comments or. I do. Thank you. The Belmont Shore Employee Rider Pass program is a very successful program that was started in March of 2013 and modeled after the Cal State Long Beach program, which provides free transit to All Long Beach State. I'm sorry, all Long Beach Transit busses to eligible students, faculty and staff at Long Beach State with the Belmont Shore Employee Rider Pass program, employers in Belmont Shore provide a free bus pass to all employees in order to encourage transit ridership. Currently, we have over 500 Belmont Shore employees taking advantage of this program, which reduces pollution and most importantly, given the area helps ease the parking challenges we face in the shore. I appreciate staff extending this program for an additional six months as we work out a long term agreement with Long Beach Transit to continue providing bus service for our Belmont Shore employees. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any public comment on this item? Please cast your vote. Motion carries.

Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing regarding an economic subsidy associated with the First Amendment to Sales Tax Incentive Agreement No. 32687 with Alant Corporation, dba Circle Porsche Audi, a California corporation, pursuant to California Government Code Section 53083; and Authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to implement the First Amendment to Sales Tax Incentive Agreement No. 32687 with Alant Corporation, a California corporation, for the expanded Circle Porsche and Audi dealership located at 1855 North Lakewood Boulevard. (District 4)

LongBeachCC_08092022_22-0920

Thank you. We are going. We are doing the next hearing, though it should be quick. So we are going to do hearing nine and it'll be our last item for the evening. So. Madam Kirk. Item nine Report from Economic Development Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record. Conclude the public hearing regarding an economic subsidy associated with the First Amendment to Sales Tax Incentive Agreement with Ashland Corporation pursuant to California Government Code Section 53083 and authorize City Manager to execute all necessary to implement the agreement with Allen Corporations for the Expanded Circle Port and Aldi dealership located at 1855 North Lakewood Boulevard District four. And this is required of. I have and I do have a motion by Councilmember Super now and Councilman Allen. Mm. Do you want to do both? Yes. You and each of you do solemnly state that the testimony you may give in a court now and pending before this body shall be due to the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God. I mean, conservative stuff for short. Thank you. Yes, we have a couple of things you have to read in the record. Johnny Vallejo or acting director of economic development will do that. Thank you, honorable mayor. Mayors, members of the city council. This hearing is for an amendment to sales tax incentive agreement. 32687. With the corporation doing business a circle for Audi located 1855. In 2011, City Council authorized a sales tax incentive agreement circle Porsche Audi. The agreement supporting an expansion redevelopment project that included renovation of the existing Audi dealership and expanding its operations by acquiring and renovating an adjacent 1.44. Acre property. For a separate Porsche dealership. The initial sales tax incentive establish a 50% share of annual local sales and use tax above a base of $294,465 through 2022, or upon reaching a cap of $2.5 million, whichever came first. The corporation is undergoing a significant expansion of the dealership, which includes a new showroom, new parts and service department and an additional storage lot. Kaiser Marston Associates, the city's fiscal advisor, estimates. Estimates of the expansion project cost will total $9.22 million and have an annual feasibility gap of $338,000 in support of expansion, investment and retention of this Long Beach business ALONG Corporation has requested an extension of the terms of their initial sales tax incentive agreement. The proposed amendment would retain the same terms with the city and continuing to share 50, 50, 50 of the annual local sales and use tax generated above the base amount through December 2032, or upon a lot receiving $2.5 million from their share of local sales and use tax, whichever comes first. Based on current projections, the cumulative total of local sales tax generated during the ten year term of the proposed agreement is estimated to be over $10.1 million. With these new improvements of this amount, a maximum of $2.5 million will be paid to A1, while the city would receive the expected 7.6 million in excess of that amount. The proposed agreement will retain and strengthen the position of this local business preserve 87 existing full time jobs, and create approximately 18 additional full time jobs. Thank you. And this concludes my staff report. Thank you. Is there any public comment at there? Any members of the public they would like to speak on item nine and person, please. Can I put the podium in zoom please use the raise hand feature now. We do have one person in Zim. Your time starts now. Can you please unmute yourself? That concludes public comment. Okay. So there's no clever comment on that. Can't come from of any comments. That was. That was super. I'm sorry. You're right. That was customer super now. It says, okay, this is awesome. So I'll just say. I appreciate my colleague's support. This is an iconic business. We appreciate them staying in Long Beach and as just been an iconic. Dealership. As a traffic circle for over 50 years. Thank you, Councilman Allen. Yes, I agree. And my previous life, I had the opportunity to work with both of those dealerships. And it's you know, it's hard to get a dealership to stay when they're inner city and so and not on a freeway. And so I absolutely support this. It's good for for the city and it's good for our taxes. So thank you very much and happy to support. Thank you. There's a motion and a second. We'll do the roll call vote, please. Councilwoman Cindy has. Councilwoman Tandy has campaigned. Councilwoman Allen. All right. Councilwoman Price. I. Councilman Sabina I. Councilwoman Mongo. I. Catwoman Sierra I. Councilmember Muranga. Councilman Austin. I. Vice Mayor Richardson. Yes. The motion is carried ater. Thank you. That concludes the agenda. I do. We do have general public comment. Is there a second general anybody to speak at there?

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute contracts, and any necessary documents including any subsequent amendments, with College of Instrument Technology, of Bellflower, CA; Long Beach Memorial Medical Center, of Long Beach, CA; Los Angeles Unified School District, of Los Angeles, CA; Nurses Development Center Inc., of Cypress, CA; and Regents of the University of California, a public nonprofit educational institution, on behalf of University Extension of the University of California, Los Angeles DBA University of California Los Angeles Extension, of Los Angeles, CA, to provide training and employment services to residents, in a total aggregate amount not to exceed $1,000,000, through December 31, 2022, with the option to renew for an additional one-year period, at the discretion of the City Manager. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_02152022_22-0179

The motion is carry nine two. Thank you. Number 13, please. Item 13. Report from Economic Development. Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute five separate contracts on behalf of the University. Extension of the University of California, Los Angeles to provide training and employment services to residents in a total aggregated amount not to exceed 1 million citywide. Thank you. Is there emotion here of looking for hand moved by move price? They're second seconds and they have. Thank you. Is there any public comment on this? Are there any members of the public that would like to speak on this item? Please use the raise hand feature or dial star nine. CNN. That concludes public comment. Thank you, Councilman Price. Any comments? No, thank you. Certainly. Seconder. It. All right. Thank you. Councilwoman Sundance. Hi. Councilwoman Allen. I character woman price. I count. Spencer Brown. Eye. Councilwoman Mango. Eye. Councilwoman Zara. I. Councilmember Oranga. I. Councilman Austin. Hi. Vice Mayor Richardson. Yes.

Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications No. R-7089 for the Rainbow Harbor Sewage Evacuation System Repair and Upgrade Project; award the contract to Pastusak Plumbing Company, of Long Beach, CA, in the amount of $811,600, and authorize a 25 percent contingency in the amount of $202,900, for a total contract amount not to exceed $1,014,500; and, authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to enter into the contract, including any necessary amendments. (District 2)

LongBeachCC_07182017_17-0589

Thank you. Next we have item 32, please. Item 32 The Report from Public Works. Parks and Recreation is Marine recommendation to water contract to pass to sack plumbing company for the Rainbird Harbor Sewage Evacuation System Repair and Upgrade Project. For a total contract amount not to exceed 1 million District two. Councilman Pierce, care to speak your motion speaks that report, please. Tom Modica This is the project to. Essentially. Upgrade our sewage system down in. The marinas. It says a critical system that is at its point where it needs to be replaced. So we've been out to bid a couple of times. We're lucky to have a really good contract here and looking forward for approval from the council. Thank you. Public comment on this item. Single member. Please cast your vote. Oops. Well, a motion fail. Let's do that again. I think we broke the Internet. Okay. All right. All right. No. Let's just do a can we just do a hand vote? All in favor. Raise your hand, please. Any oppose motion carries.

A RESOLUTION granting conceptual approval to City Investors XXV LLC to construct, install, and maintain two sets of private communication conduits under and across 8th Avenue North, south of Harrison Street and north of Thomas Street.

SeattleCityCouncil_09182017_Res 31767

Short title. Agenda item three Resolution 317 67 Granting Conceptual Approval of City Investors 25 LLC Construction Solid Maintain two sets of Private Communication Conduits Committee recommends that the resolution be adopted. Councilmember O'Brien. Q This is a conceptual approval for a project in South Lake Union, just south of sorry, just north of Denny Park, two buildings that are under construction and proposed to be leased to Facebook. The tenant has requested and the developer requested permission to have these conduits under the street so that the two buildings, software infrastructure and hardware infrastructure can be connected securely. This lays out the outline of how that would move forward, and once the project is complete, we would have a binding agreement in committee. We had discussions about what would happen if for some reason the city needed to do something different with that right away. They have access to it and those conduits were in the way. And we have owners under conditions with some time constraints to go ahead and change that deal any time if the right away access is necessary. Are there any comments? Okay. Please call the role on the passage of the bill. Oh, I'm sorry. This is a resolution. Just kidding. Those in favor of adopting the resolution. Vote I. Those oppose vote no. The motion carries. The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please? We will not have the report of the planning, land use and Zoning Committee. Will the clerk please read the short title of the report? The report of the Planning and Zoning Commission on four cancel 119069 relate to the Seattle Electrical Code Committee. Recommend to pass.

Order for a hearing to explore municipal bonds and other fiscal options to increase affordable housing and community investments.

BostonCC_04062022_2022-0295

Duncan number 0295. Order for a hearing to explore municipal bonds and other fiscal options to increase affordable housing and community investments. The DGA recognizes Councilor Fernandez Innocent, chair of the Committee on Ways and Means. Councilor Fernandez Anderson. You have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. The Chair. The Committee on Ways and Means held a hearing to explore prospect of opportunities for more housing or creating more affordable housing by way of bonds. And we I'd like to thank the administration. I'd like to thank my lead the lead co-sponsor or the lead sponsor and my lead and my co-sponsor on this hearing. And it will remain in in basically will main committee. And we just basically had a robust conversation about the possibilities. Administration broke down what Bonds was. They gave us a lot of back and forth, not back and forth, but explanations as to what the risks are and in terms of what the possibilities are. They said they would go back to us with projections of what those numbers actually look like. I don't know if my co-sponsors like to say anything else about it, but I think that we definitely saw a possibility of expiring bonds. And we'll be happy to report more as we go. Thank you, Counsel Fernandez Innocent. Would any of our colleagues like to speak on this matter? The chair recognizes counsel. Illusion, counsel, illusion. You have the full. Care conversation yesterday around bonds. I want to thank the administration. I just stare at Maureen Garcia and Jim Williamson. And we came and we talked about bonds. We talked about our R about our general debt policy, but also about, you know, what would it look like to increase to increase our debt service or to actually change our repayment schedule so that our bond repayments are a smaller fraction of our overall budget, which would give us flexibility to do a lot more. We obviously have been as a city, always touting this triple-A bond rating, which a lot of us are very proud of in the city. But a lot of that is built on a strong economy that is often entrenched in inequities in our city, and so exploring ways in which we can actually attack these issues like affordable housing, like community investments, like in more infrastructure, in neighborhoods that have been forgotten and excluded and leaning into our fiscal strength through our bond policy is one way to do that. So I want to thank everyone who participated in that conversation. Our new president, Flynn, comes in here and we're out. Obviously, my co-sponsor is Council back in Casper Finance and Anderson, both of whom have presented really great ideas around housing and how we can use our combined our city's fiscal strength with whether it's what we need to do under the 3:00 amendment to get more social housing built or rental home options. I think this really does present us with a really great opportunity to pay for and do the things that we need to do in community to address the urgency of the crises that we're facing as a city . So it's just the beginning of a conversation and I think the chair holding it and everyone who leaned into it because I know it can seem pretty dry like bond policy, but it is really important. It's how we pay for a lot of things that we need to get done. So I appreciate this hearing and look forward to further conversations. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor John. Oh, and also just want to thank Councilor, former City Councilor Josh Cecum and Professor Ben Bradlow, who came and provided really great testimony and really, I think did a great job of of centering the urgency of the issues we face and how our bond policy can, can, can be a tool here. Thank you, counsel. Jan, um, the chair recognizes Councilor Borg Council block view of the floor. Thank you so much, Mr. President. And thank you also to my co-sponsors, Councilor Fernandez Anderson and Councilor Blue John, the lead sponsor. This was a great hearing to have. I want summarize it because they they've on so, so well but it's just exciting to me. You know, the last time we were having a version of this conversation, it was last term and the mayor was a co-sponsor on that. And so I think that, you know, talking to our enough team and seeing the kind of desire and willingness in the council to really bond for housing in a new and robust way. I think like the stars are aligning, I hope for us to really talk about that at scale in Boston. And I just want to stress in this forum that, you know, when you look at the West Coast cities, L.A., San Francisco, Portland, many of which are in very similar acute housing situations as us, each of them in the last five years has put out bonds for $1,000,000,000 on housing. And I just think that, you know, in the same way that we talked about bonding for, you know, $1,000,000,000 over ten years for us with the strategy, I think the time has come to talk about that here. And I think that the reality is that there are ways to there are ways to adjust our our policy and even within our policy, some of our efficiencies and getting capital spending to actually happen in ways to kind of make room for that type of serious investment. And so, yeah, just really, really grateful to the colleagues for relaunching this conversation. And and as everyone knows, I'm I think we should be in the business of building more public housing in the city and that we can we're authorized by the feds to build another 2500 units. So I hope this is a conversation that we can have aggressively to move forward in the coming months. So. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Counsel. Anyone else like to speak on this matter at this time? Docket 0295 will remain in committee. We're going on to. Well, going on two motions orders in resolutions. Mr. Clerk, please read docket. 04650465 councilors were all in Louisiana, offered the following petition for a special law relative to enact authorizing additional licenses for the sale of alcoholic beverages to be drunk on the premises in Boston.

Recommendation to adopt resolution requesting the Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk to call, provide, and give notice of a General Municipal Election to be consolidated with the Statewide General Election to be held in the City of Long Beach (City) on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, and include the proposed Charter amendment to a vote of the qualified electors of the City to establish a Police Oversight Commission, which will replace the current Citizen Police Complaint Commission, and add a Director of Police Oversight position; directing City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis of the Charter amendment; and, providing for the filing of primary and rebuttal arguments and setting rules for the filing of written arguments regarding a proposed Charter amendment to be submitted at said election. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_08092022_22-0929

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So we do want to take the time today to really dove a little bit deeper into this issue. There's been a lot of discussion going back to reports that we did independently from consultants going out to the community. We did public safety meetings, we've done Charter Amendment Committee. But I want to wrap all that up today and really explain some of the differences between what we currently have and what we are proposing. We do believe that it is a stronger model, but it is a different model. And so with that, with change comes different approaches and things that we're trying to do to make this an even stronger model for oversight and transparency. So I will hand this over to our assistant city manager, Linda Tatum, who's been leading the charge in the past year on this effort. And we're supported by our PCC manager as well. Linda. Thank you, Tom. So I'd like to start the presentation by giving you an overview of the timeline that we've been involved in this effort. And it starts back in, in 2020 with the adoption, the City Council's adoption of the reconciliation report that called for this assessment, this independent assessment of the PCC. And as a result of that adoption, the City Council actually funded in the FSA 21 budget, this independent assessment. So staff then proceeded to go through an RFP process and we selected police change integration as the firm to actually conduct this study. And they have a we selected them because they have a depth of of experience in doing these kinds of studies nationwide. So their work took about ten months. During that ten months, they did extensive public outreach. As Tom mentioned, they did community listening sessions. They met did a presentation at the Public Safety Commission. They also actually went and presented before the charter amendment or I'm sorry, the PCC itself as a result of that in February of 2022, earlier this year, they did a very detailed report to this to the city council, pretty much outlining what they looked at in the study . They they surveyed the models that they were considering for the city's consideration, given the issues here in this community. And as a result of that presentation of the various models and their recommendations, City Council in February directed staff to go ahead and initiate that. The Charter amendment process. And those two initial steps in that process involved a starting the meeting confer process, which staff did and successfully completed the Phase one meeting confer. The second part of that process was to have the city attorney prepare draft language for the charter amendment. So those two steps were done in February. It was started in February and then in June, once the charter amendment process started this, the charter amendment body can conduct at two public hearings. And both of those were both in both of those hearings that the item was continued to move forward. So this is the third and final public hearing for the charter amendment process. And we are hoping that the result here is that the city council would refer this item to the November ballot. So I'd like to talk a little bit about what oversight of law enforcement is, what civilian oversight is. So in the police report, there was a pretty good definition of what a police oversight actually is. And it's essentially when one or more individuals outside of the sworn police chain of command whose work specifically focuses on holding that department, its officers and its employees are accountable. Now, any police oversight really is is critical, but they have several, several attributes. If you could go back to that former slide for a second. I just want to touch on those really briefly. There are seven attributes that any really effective model needs to consider. Number one is independence. And that is something that means that it's independent and it doesn't report to a line department in the city department, but rather an independent entity. It also looks at how much information and access to personnel in the department that the the oversight body has. So that's really critical to them being effective and doing the work that they need to do in terms of investigations, review or monitoring or whatever their role is. Transparency and transparency, meaning that the operations and the work of that oversight body are made available to the public freely and without any constraint. And also that there's a reporting component to the to the model. The other one is adequate funding. That is something that has been considered and was recommended in the police report community engagement. It's critical that the community input be a key part of any oversight process, as well as the legitimacy of the actual oversight body. And lastly, there ideally, there should be some kind of evaluation of the oversight body and the oversight process periodically. Okay. So the next thing I'd like to talk about is where police spent a lot of time, in addition to getting feedback from the public, they spent a lot of time looking at essentially three core models that exist nationwide for how police oversight is handled. The first of those is a review model, and the name in the title really suggests what their primary focus is. And that review model, the the oversight body, essentially focuses on reviewing the investigations that were independently done by the by the internal affairs within the police department. So that is one model, a review model. The second model is the auditor monitor model. And this model, it functions specifically to look at systemic operational policies, training and operations within a police department. And there it looks at those and makes recommendations for improvement. So that's the focus of the audit or monitor model. The third model is investigatory models. And those, as it's the name suggests, you have civilian professionals that are actually doing investigation of complete complaints against the police department. So those are fundamentally the three models where you could focus. Now, the fourth model is a hybrid, which means that you could pick and choose depending upon your community's needs, its objectives. You can pick and choose kind of these pieces of those three models and put together. So what you see on the right here is a really high level summary of what our current PCC model is, because it is an investigation model. Essentially, our PCC investigates civilian complaints. Those are external complaints against the police department from the public. The L b our police department, internal affairs investigates those complaints, and then they take the results of those complaints, go to the PCC and they make a finding or a determination on the complaint and they make a recommendation to the city manager. And the fourth and the fourth step of that process is for the city manager to make a finding on the complaint. And that's a determination as to whether or not the complaint was sustained overturn or if the officer was exonerated. So what I'd like to talk about at a very high level, and then I'll go into it and on a little bit more detail, just because there is some complexity associated with it is the proposed model. What the police report showed is that what they recommended to this city, based upon the feedback that they heard from the public, a review of the operation of the current CC KPCC model. They recommended that the auditor model, auditor monitor term model, but a hybrid, meaning that they wanted the focus to be on audit. Systematic review of policies, training and operations within the police department. But to support that, the hybrid comes in because they also recommended having an independent police oversight commission and the two of those bodies would work together systematically to address the issues and concerns that that arise in terms of police complaints in our community. So I'm going to give you a high level overview of that. Again, systematic review of internal investigations. And in this case, it would be both external community external complaints that came about from community complaints, but also internal complaints in the police department that arise within the organization. It also specifies that the director would have the authority to conduct investigations and a very limited set of circumstances. That's when there is great bodily injury resulting from a complaint. In that case, they would actually have the authority, the authority to investigate the complaint or review the the complaint. And I'll go into a little bit more detail on that. But the other case that was really important that they have the authority is to investigate complaints against the police command staff. And again, another key component of this, this model is that the police oversight director would have access to all of the police department records, all of their reports. They would also have access to to personnel as witnesses, to any complaint incidents. And again, I talked about the critical component of this model being the commission, which provides the opportunity for ongoing, ongoing public feedback. So that you're hearing from the community at all times in the process about issues or concerns that that that the public may have about police procedures or policies. And lastly, this model includes recommendations, specifically given their independence directly to city council. Okay. So what you see in this light is just a it's a much broader comparison of the different types of models. I talked about the investigation focused model earlier, and this just gives you a little bit of comparison about these models and how they're how they are represented throughout the nation. In terms of the investigation focus models, there's about 18% of the about 157 police oversight organization or activities throughout the nation. About 29 of those are investigation focused. And one of the the primary purpose, as I mentioned earlier, is that this model, they really focus on actually having the civilian commission do the investigations. Now, a strength of that model is that it can potentially reduce some of the perceived bias in how complaints are handled, but it also may increase community trust in the investigation if they feel that it's completely independent. But of course, a weakness of this process and the investigation model is that it's often procedurally quite complex and it's also pretty resource intensive. And there's also some level of community frustration in this model when broad or systemic change doesn't occur as a result of the focus strictly on only investigating complaints that arise in the community. The next model I talked about earlier is the review focused. That's the one, again, where the Oversight Commission is focused on reviewing complaints that occur within the police department. They don't undertake the investigation, but they review the investigation after it's been completed by the fire department. Now, this right now or currently this is the most popular or the most most communities have this oversight model, about 61% of all of the ones across the nation are this model. This is an older model, but right now it's still the most numerous around the country. It really does focus, as it says here on review of completed investigations, but it does have some strengths because of the civilian input into the complaint and the investigation process. There is there it increases public trust in the investigation process. But the potential weaknesses of the review focused model is that it has limited authority because the authority is focused on investigations or review of investigations rather than a systemic review of all of the policies and procedures. The focus, again, being on complaints. So let's go to the third model, which is the auditor monitoring model. Currently, only about 20% nationwide have this model. However, this is probably the most the most the newest model that in the world of police oversight, it's the newest and it's the most modern. And increasingly as as new oversight models come online and communities. This is the model that is is is becoming most popular. And there are some reasons for that. Its primary purpose is to look really broadly and examine systems in a systematic way or a systemic way. Broad patterns in police discipline, a review of police policies, training and operations. And that's one of the reasons that it's used more recently in the modern police oversight models. Some of the strengths of this model is that it gives more robust public reporting because of the systemic approach to looking at policies, procedures and operations. You get a much better picture of the operations, and it's actually more it's more effective ultimately in promoting long term change within the police department. And some of the weaknesses is that the community may be skeptical of that systemic approach, and it does require a staff with significant expertize. So let's talk in a little bit more detail about kind of what we found when we look at benchmarking our community against other communities, particularly those here in California and in similarly sized cities. So to get that information, we went there is a National Association of Civilian Oversight and they they have a rich database of different models within different communities. So the police study looked at 26 different communities here in California, not including our RC PCC here in Long Beach. And what we did in comparing ourselves to other similarly sized cities, we looked at the city of Anaheim and Anaheim. They have the auditor monitor model and it's a hybrid because they also have a commission, a police oversight commission. We found the same thing in the city of Fresno and the city of Oakland. Again, all three of these had a hybrid auditor model. More auditor model. That's a mouthful. Auditor monitor with a commission. And in Riverside, they had the city had a review model. And lastly, in the city of Sacramento, they likewise had a hybrid model that had the auditor monitor again, the auditor monitor being the. More systemic review of policies, operations and procedures along with the Commission. Okay. So in looking at police oversight, in terms of how you would implement in the city, there are some really important factors to keep in mind. When you start thinking about how you implement or how what model you use, it's really is critical that you realize that civilian oversight of police, it is really it's not a policy panacea. It won't address all of the problems of police misconduct or or organizational and operational changes. But it is one really significant piece of that puzzle. So it's important that we keep that in mind that this this that any model that we choose will will need to be practice along with other really important tools. There's also no perfect model. I think each city has to look at its objectives and what it wants to accomplish and what the issues are in their community and design a model that really is customized to their needs as much as possible. And lastly, it's so important that oversight programs be grounded in those attributes I talked about earlier. But the really important components are making sure that the model is is is collaboration, and that's collaboration between the oversight body or the oversight director. And the commission is in the city's police department. And it's also critical. That there be a high level of transparency. Okay. So I will talk a little bit in more detail about the oversight model that is proposed. That is. Earlier, I talked about the auditor monitor model. It's a hybrid because what is being proposed is a clearly and a very significantly independent model. Our current model is is underneath the city manager. This model would not be underneath a city department, but it would be independent and report directly to the city council. So the two components of the hybrid model are the the director of police oversight. This person is hired and fired by the city council. Currently under a model. Now we don't have a director. It is. The KPCC is managed by a manager within the city manager's office. This director would report directly to the city council. He would have direct access to the police department, records, data and personnel and witnesses, including police personnel. And currently, under our current model, there's limited KPCC access to police data. As I said earlier, a very critical component is that they would look at systematic issues, look at patterns, data and trends and deficiencies within operations, policy and training. And right now, there is no authority of the current model to look in a systemic way at police operations. And the second component is the Police Oversight Commission that would be appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the council. They have their role would be to solicit or to get input from the community on areas of issues are concerned and they would provide feedback directly to the director regarding priorities for what areas need to be looked at based upon the feedback they get from the public. And they would also review the annual reports that the director would be required to provide to the City Council. So why did why did the art consultant recommend the auditor monitor model? We think that the basis for that recommendation is that this model gives us the best change, opportunity for systematic change within the organization because of the systemic approach to looking at the organization and the and a high level of community input and feedback and collaboration with the police department. And we we also saw that during that very extensive public hearing process, the community asked for independence. They wanted an independent body. They wanted more transparency and the need for oversight of internal affairs, as well as getting better a higher level of education about C.P.S. in the community. So again, I talked about some of these and I will I will go through these really quickly. Systemic issues addressed by the director. That does not occur now because the focus in the current model is on investigations rather than looking at systemic operations. There would be a timeline for when a recommendation is made by the director and a report to the City Council. This model includes a timeline for the police department to review the recommendation and respond and to ask for more time if they need it. I'd also like to just highlight that they can investigate major uses of force that result in great bodily injury upon the request of the city manager. That's a new authority that they do currently do not have. They also have the right to be on the scene of a critical incident, a critical incident being a a major use of force, a police shooting or something of that nature. They get to review all the complaints to ensure that all of the allegations included in the complaint are are appropriate. And they also are required to investigate specific types of incidents. And I mentioned earlier, if there is a complaint against the police chief or the command staff, it's appropriate that there be an independent investigation of that by the director. And lastly, provide an annual report to the City Council on their findings once they do the systemic reviews. So we feel that this model is a strengthened version of police oversight. I listed some of the bullets here that talk about what that role is. They get to review the commission itself. They get to review and provide feedback to the director, and they also play a role in hiring the director. So they have a very iterative process, working directly with the commissioner in terms of getting public feedback and then making recommendations to the director. Okay. Next. This I to. Here's how just in a really quick summary, how the director works with the Police Oversight Commission. It's essentially a feedback loop where the commission meets monthly and they get feedback from the community, they provide that feedback to the director. And I just give some examples of how that that could work. If there is a particular issue in the community that has occurred repeatedly based upon feedback, they can make a recommendation to the and to the director to investigate that particular area and prepare a report and recommendation to counsel. So there. The next one is I talked earlier about the systematic reviews or the systemic reviews. This involves the the director looking at operations, policies, procedures and training. And again, an example there could be if there's a number of calls for service in one particular area, they could ask the police department to look at the criteria for determining those calls for service and provide a report and a recommendation. Next slide. Again, I talked earlier about the comparison of those models, and I'll just focus here on the powers and duties, because I've talked about some of the other ones, both the PCC right now and the Internal Affairs Conduct investigations. We feel that that's redundant. So it's more efficient to go to a model where only the I.A., the Internal Affairs, is conducting investigation, but the director would have the authority to review those investigations that are completed. Next slide. Currently the P.C.C. Does have subpoena powers. However, under our current model, they rarely use that authority. But with a new oversight director, there would be no need for the subpoena power because the charter amendment would allow access to all of the police department records, to police personnel, to witnesses. They would allow them to be on the scene of a critical incident so they could observe it and make recommendations based upon their observations. And again, I talked about the community engagement. The proposal now bakes in that community input and engagement into the process, and that doesn't exist in the current model we have. Okay. So the director, they would have the authority in a use of force incident that results in great bodily injury. Here's a really quick rundown of what they get to do. They get to respond to the scene to observe how the investigation is being conducted. They get to review the complaint itself before it is investigated to ensure that the allegations are included. They get to audit the case to ensure thoroughness, timeliness and quality. And based upon the findings of the investigation, they can present recommendations to the police, to the to the city, the city council as a result of their investigation. Okay. Next slide. In the case of which which doesn't result in great bodily injury, say it's a police involved shooting, but it doesn't result in great bodily injury. They have the same authority there in terms of being on the scene, relying on their own observations. They can actually brief the they can request a briefing of the incident to the to the police commission or the oversight commission. And the director can actually review the investigation again for thoroughness, timeliness and quality. And if an officer involved shooting occurs, the director has the authority to investigate. If the city manager requests it. Again, the very specific role that the director is required to conduct the investigation is within is a case where there is a complaint against the police chief or any member of the command staff. That's where the independence is, is actually required and mandated as a part of this this model. And again, they will report those findings to the city council, and they will have access to all department records and data in order to complete that investigation. Okay. So I just wanted to reiterate that as a part of the City Council's initial recommendation to move forward with this charter amendment, they did give staff the authority to look at the current PCC operation and to start implementing improvements in that current process. And those are in the areas of transparency, making sure that the results of the operation are more available to the public. They ask us to look at training for both the commission and for the staff, and also to look at operations for greater efficiency in the current CPC model. So this is just a recap. There were substantial opportunities for public engagement, and I mentioned some of those earlier, and that also includes the two public hearings we've had so far to date, as well as tonight's public hearing. And I will just highlight that any change in the proposed charter amendment and language that's already been published and circulate it would require a meeting confer with the affected labor organizations. And if that were to occur as a result of tonight's feedback, it would fundamentally defer the the proposed amendment to the to the 2024 election cycle because there were just not be physically time to complete the meet and confer and still make the ballot. So the staff recommendation in closing is that we ask the recommend that the city council refer the matter to be placed on the on the ballot. We think that the auditor monitor hybrid model is a superior, stronger and more modern model than the one we currently have. It's responsive to the public feedback that we heard during the outreach process, and we think that it provides the greatest potential for systemic change and reform based upon a high level of collaboration between the the Oversight Commission, the director and the police department. That concludes that presentation. Thank you. Thank you. Do have a motion by Councilmember Austin and Councilman Sara Johnson are awesome. Do you want to go to the public or you want me to comment first? I'd like to go public first. Okay. So, Madam Clerk, will you do the public comment, please? If there are any members of the public that would like to speak on item 19 and person, please line up at the podium in Zoom. Please use the raise hand feature or dial star nine now. Hello again. I am very, very encouraged by this. I am very excited to hear something about this. I'm a strong advocate of we, the people. The people are the actual government up here. You folks, with all due respect, you're the representatives and the public servants. So when the people are empowered to have oversight, I'm extremely, extremely encouraged. And I appreciate this this being brought forth. I'm reading here. Forgive me. I am encouraged by the fact that it's independent. It's independent and as transparent as possible. I call it a win. And when I speak transparency, I mean as transparent as possible. Say, when someone goes to court, they are even if just accused and not found guilty, the public knows what's going on with who, where they are in the investigation, what things have gone on rather investigation. But in the case. So so transparency as much as possible is very encouraging. I'm not sure how deep it goes. I would like. I would actually like to read for the details. But I want to make sure that there is no absolutely no red tape from the police to state that, hey, there's an investigation going on and we can't share this information. This has to be, again, as public as possible with no red tape, or they must be compelled legally or face consequences. One or two people behind the whole thing is fantastic. However, again, being that it's public would be would be best. So that way they any sort of steps that they take the public know exactly where they are, who's involved, what steps are taking. So to people is great, but so long as their work is entirely public I believe would be would be best placed to say we should consider maybe termed employment for these individuals. That way they don't become entrenched and and shake hands with folks behind doors, possibly, possibly an elected type of type of position again. So that again. So it could be termed and and avoid entrenchment. No hiding behind a public investigation. Excuse. Excuse me. Writing. I wrote a lot of notes. This. I'll just. I'll just end with this. I guess we can be a model as as the presentation showed, others are doing it. But I think we can be a model to be the perfection of what it is. There is no perfect, but we can be as close as possible to perfection if we need to hold it off a little bit till 2024. I'm not saying we do. If in case I would rather we do it quality before quickly, because something like this is absolutely fantastic. And I'm again, I'm very encouraged. Last quick, quick note. Very, very on this on the side here, just a quick request on decorum. If the council members can maybe shut off their videos when they're eating big mouthfuls with noodles, hanging out of their mouths is very distracting. Thank you very much. Thank you. Just 1/2, sir. Everyone that's going to speak, if you can, please just line up at the podium, please. Is anyone else speaking on this item? I'm going to close the speakers list. Okay. And then is there anyone on? Okay. Did you do the count? Okay. Great. Yes, sir. Go ahead. Good evening. My name is Tom Beck. I'm an attorney. And I've done a great deal of litigation with the police department of your city over the years. In fact, I was instrumental in in seeing that the first CPPCC came into existence. And my concern then, and it continues to be today is whether or not a complaint by an or an aggrieved citizen reaches a fair conclusion and objective conclusion. The weakness in the current system notwithstanding what you've just heard. Is that although now the proposed oversight lacks the ability to investigate. It also opens the door for investigations at the discretion of the city manager. If it's a GBI, great bodily injury case or shooting or. Yes. By an officer, that that that's a hybrid to me the office that they're either going to have the powers to investigate especially those high profile incidents or they're not. And this is where the subpoena power becomes so important, because under the present system, the power exists. And if you've just been told that power is being taken away, if an investigation is being commanded by the city manager into a high profile incident, they shouldn't be confined to the parameters of the department's investigation into that incident because they may discover, for example, a very simple one, that if they can't subpoena the medical records of the person that was injured, to know the gravity of those injuries, whether they can be called GBI or not, GBI makes a difference. And that, to me, emasculated the power of the investigative oversight body. It's really at the discretion of the city manager to do it. And and the model that's being proposed patterns itself after the war, the way the United States Department of Justice overtakes the the administration of police departments, as it did in L.A., as it's done in Seattle and Ferguson, Missouri, where those persons reported to a federal judge, not to a city manager, and who had the authority to the cloud, so to speak, to do things that the city and its employees, its agency, were unwilling to undertake. So I think that those are weaknesses you all must consider before you decide to bump this to to the electorate, because the electorate electorate really won't know any of the things we're talking about. Thank you. They can expect police. Good evening. I want to thank you for a very thorough presentation. I do have I am in support of this commission, but I did have a couple concerns. First, I was just wondering how the community will continue to be engaged with this commission. I know that a part of why this commission was created in the first place was to ensure that the community has that direct line of communication with the Commission. And so I'm hoping that that is further clarified to ensure that that still does happen. Also, my other concern is that how this committee is selected. I know it's stating that the city council members and the mayor will be the ones selecting the committee, and there's really no input from the community itself. And I'm wondering if there's a possibility of opening the door that perhaps the community can have influence on selecting those committee members or maybe even voting those members into this commission? Because, again, this is about that line of communication with the community. And I'm sorry I may hurt some feelings right now, but as we talk about the criticisms of the city council and the police department, there's really no response to those criticisms, but instead continued praise for the Long Beach Police Department. So I'm just questioning if they're going to select people on that commission that will truly have oversight over the police department. I know in the presentation it was included that a potential weakness is that you need a staff with significant expertize to have truly true oversight. And so that's again, echoing my concern about who might be selected on this committee. And I think it's important to have people that have expertize in systemic racism and systemic issues within communities. So that's looking at, again, systemic racism, specifically issues of policing, the history of policing, not just in Long Beach, but in the United States as a whole. So I think that's really important for the commission and even the director specifically. My other concern was that it was mentioned that only the internal affairs would be investigating and that the Commission didn't necessarily have to. So again, I'm questioning how do we ensure that the Commission will be investigating the issues that are coming forward? And again, I think that's important through that ongoing communication with the community and full transparency, as someone else also stated earlier. Again, I've read the language in the recommendation prior to coming in and it just seemed very vague in terms of how much community input would be in this commission. And I'm hoping I'm hoping that we can really strengthen the language or just at least clarify community input. And again, I want to emphasize community input on the commission members and the expertize that is needed for those positions. Thank you. Thank you next week or please. Good evening, Mayor Garcia and counsel. And my name is David Clement and I'm a resident of the second district, Cyndie. And I had the honor of serving on the PCC a few years ago and I was chair one year and I was appointed by Mayor Foster, reappointed by Mayor Garcia and then supported by our Councilwoman Susie Price . Susie and I also served with Sully Sara one on one of the commissions and I Patrick Patrick Weathers over there. He's one of our investigators. In any case, I have always had the greatest respect for our officers, men and women in uniform. And I believe that the entirety of the CPC felt the same way. We have a great police department. I think the vast majority of our officers are of the highest caliber professionalism and integrity. But my position on this is I don't think that we should of I don't think you should vote on this. I don't think it should be passed. I don't think it should go to a to the ballot and for the following reasons. So I ask you to vote no on it. I believe that the proposed changes to the Charter will weaken the PCC, see PCC rather than strengthen the Commission. I think that will hurt. I think it's ironic, I think will hurt some of our most vulnerable, vulnerable people, people of color. Because because if we have this person, this person called the oversight director having to be somewhat subservient to our city manager, it seems like that kind of a conflict of interest, and I don't support that . I think that and it's ironic because these people are the same people who vote for the majority of our council members. So so I don't support this this amendment. I think that the CPPCC should be able to interview police officers if there's a complaint directly interview those officers. And I think that I think that the current CPPCC should be able to. I think that the fact that the city manager can overturn and review findings of the CPPCC, I think that that should. I think that's a little bit of a conflict of interest as well. So please vote no on this amendment. Thank you. Speaker, please. Good evening. My name is Stephen Downing. I'm a resident of Council District three. This is a pre-paid package. From a so-called consultant who did not compete. But rather got the job through a purchase order and then went through the motions to deliver. What we see tonight is a preordained package that works for the way it works for City Hall, but it doesn't work for the people. The proposed charter amendment guts every possibility. The people of this city ever had for true civilian oversight of their police department. What we have now in the PCC charter could have been improved, but clearly even that is made to work by eliminating the false barriers that have traditionally been put up to ensure that it did not work. Like interview of officers. Interview of witness officers obviously posed too great a danger. To City Hall image makers. And so tonight, the curtain will fall on the third act of one more firm performance of Long Beach political theater. This one billed as part of a framework or reconciliation. I fully expect the performance will receive rave reviews from behind the rail. We've all been able to rationalize their praise by pointing to the dishonest polling of 896 potential audience members. Made to believe that the $53,000 reconciliation bill. And that they read will actually result in a performance that delivers true civilian oversight. Well, those of us who are interested enough to attend the actual performance and all of the rehearsals leading up to it to know what a turkey. The oversight performance will really be so as a last appeal. All we can ask of those of you who will vote tonight is that you abandon the 63% crutch offered from that poll. Of those falsely led to believe a great performance will be delivered. Thank you. Your time is an individual thought. Thank you, sir. To the quality of the script. Time is in play. Thank you very much. Relationship. Sir. I'm so sorry, sir. Time is up next. Speaker, please. And votes. Thank you very much. Will these over the microphones? OFFICER So, sir. You mean that. Your time is up? All right, sir. Thank you, sir. Time is up. Next speaker, please. I would give Mr. Downing most of my time. My name is Richard Lindeman. I was with Julie Shiro on the Ship Commission and my share, but it's been pretty much a fraudulent commission since its inception. You know, it has no real bearing because it didn't matter what we decided. On any case, sometimes the city manager agreed with us. Usually when we said no, sometimes she agreed. A couple of times when we said yes. But it's still up to the city managers. Discretion. And that's where the problem lies. If we have something that has been. Recommended here. This should not stand at this point and it should go into actual. Election. And be a real independent. Organization because the ship she she is not. And this derivation of it is not. Again. Thank you. You'd expect a police. I carelessly here. I did appreciate the professional report. I learned a lot from watching that. Um, and. I didn't have time to really digest it. It wasn't in the staff report, um, information. But my first question would be why would we choose the model. That is least. Likely to have public confidence? And that's on those charts. It said in there that you had to be you had to it was critical to have a high level of transparency with this chosen model. And, you know, Long Beach isn't famous for transparency. But when I read the documents on this, it talked more about confidentiality. So it would be very difficult to get transparency along with confidentiality. Those are two opposing things to me. Um. But my, my real question is, what is the problem we're solving? I can't figure that out. I mean, I hear it doesn't work, but it sounds like we're throwing out the baby. With the bathwater. We haven't gone through and picked out what doesn't work and what can we do to fix it. Right now, we have a citizen commission that has a lot of rights. They can initiate an investigation, hold hearings, subpoena witnesses, documented disposition. Those are big responsibilities. All of those authorities have been removed. So it sounds like we thought that was a failed model. And I think we're going to have to take out. The word. Citizen commission if we go with the choice that's being made here, because this is not a citizen's commission. This is a professional model. You're looking at bringing in a professional. To do the. Things that you had citizens doing anyway. Anyway, the investigative reports are. Those. Causing the city problems in court. I mean, I, I wonder I keep looking at this and saying, what is the problem we're fixing? Who benefits from it? And I just heard the last speaker say the peel away and city hall benefit. I'll tell you how I don't feel. We benefit. This is going to cost more. We're going to. Have to hire people to do this. So if if. We were really. Getting something better, perhaps that'd be worth it. But I just heard all those other speakers tell you that we're not financing the basics of running the city. I mean, we have a whole department that's working hours and hours of overtime, and we're talking about bringing. In more high level. Executives. That doesn't make sense to me. Thank you. They can expect place. Good evening. Your presentation was very informative and I too learned a lot. But it still leaves me with some questions. And I know that we need to do something. We got to do something quick and fast because we cannot continue down the path that we've been traveling historically with policing and what it brings to the community, especially for black and brown communities. There needs to be transparency. There needs to be accountability. And there's none of that. So when we look at an oversight committee, a committee, I do believe that maybe this instilled need to be involved with that as well, as well as having it brought to the attention and maybe put on the ballot so that citizens can vote on that to have a say in what's going on or who's chosen for that job position. With that being said, anybody that you've made a mention about having an expert, being expert in that in that field, for somebody to be an expert in the field for this director position, I question what does that actually mean? What are they are expert in? And what concerns me is that that now brings in another law enforcement mindset. And again, how do we screen out? Those potential risk. That is still a risk and they're still working hand in hand with police officers again. So with that being said, clearing those things up, making sure that we do have a community input in that, that's very crucial in there. If we're going to have accountability and trust to build community trust, the only way we're going to do that is if there's transparency and we're actually involved in that. So with that said, again, making sure that we clear out what are those expertize you're looking for involving the community in that? Yeah. Building up some trust and transparency. We need it all the way around. How do we work together? We can't continue down this path. The reality is people are still dying on the streets. And they look like me. Something's got to change. If you want law enforcement to have respect, they must have respect to the first and foremost accountability. How about we get rid of qualified immunity to black lives do matter. Thank you. That concludes another public comment that's here lined up. I think we have a one that's going to be online and control. Your time begins. Now. I had my hand up for. A previous comment. I did not have my hand. Up with this. Thank you. Okay. That concludes public comment. We have a motion by customer Austin customer in Austin. And I thank you all as the mayor and I really want to thank the people who came out and provided public comment and provided input throughout this process to get us to this point of. I would just say that I had the privilege of serving on the Citizen Complaint Commission from 20003 to 27. I served as chair of the Commission and it certainly is not a perfect commission. And there were a lot of frustrations with the commissioners about, you know, sometimes a lack of power, lack of transparency, lack of authority to really make a difference. But I've learned a lot over the course of my time personally on the city council as well. I just want to give everybody a little bit of background. No. One Citizen Police Complaint Commission was put in place with 30 years ago, 1992. I believe the first executive director had a law enforcement background and the second executive director had a law enforcement background and the third executive director had a law enforcement background. And it wasn't until recently, maybe the last ten years or so, that the civilian kind of got the position of the executive director. But during the course of that period of time, we also saw the staff in that commission significantly reduced. Right. That's what the city council. That's what the city manager. And the effectiveness of that condition was was impacted as a result of that. The culture was set up early with the executive directors and the managers of that commission. And I can go into even more detail on that recently, just within the last couple of years. And I'll ask the city attorney, when do we find that that the City PCC had subpoena authority? Maybe you can help me out with that. Somebody. That's a request. Yeah. This is Don Macintosh. We'd have to look into when exactly that happened and get back to you. Councilman Ralston, I believe it was recently. Within the last couple of years. Right. It was actually the CPC does have subpoena authority. And for all these years, they did utilize this, this, this, this authority or this tool that they had. We had because we were told we couldn't ask certain questions and we couldn't get certain information. Well, I think that was a game changer. The opinion from the city attorney's office to give the city c. C. Subpoena authority. I'm I'm I mean, I like the fact that we've gone through this exercise and looked at other models. And even as I mentioned earlier, every model was meant to be changed. But I think this model can be actually changed and we can achieve this hybrid model that we're looking to achieve through a administrative action. Through two actions that our city manager already has the tools at his disposal to empower to commission even further the the proposed commission. To me, he values the citizens. Right. It takes the citizen component and assists an oversight component away from the model. And and and there's somebody, I think astutely mentioned it makes it a professional model. Right? It creates another IP manager with with the with the direct accountability to city council. But I mean, where's the citizen involvement? I think that's that's really what's missing here. And so I'm troubled. I want to and certainly I really want to make some similar reforms to our city PCC. I've always said that I think there are administrative tools and we can we can do one. One thing that was actually missed missing from tonight's presentation that we received a couple of weeks ago was actually the the the cost difference of of this is the current model versus what is being proposed is going to be significant. We're going to add several staff members to be able to support this this new auditor. Auditor model, but. The current motto is deficient with stealth. We have to ask yourself, how much better could this model be if we added a couple of investigators and we added the administrative staff to allow them to at least do their reports on time? I understand our reports. We haven't had a report. What was the last time the city council voted on a key report? Right. They're delayed. They're late because it's a staffing challenge. And I would challenge that to try to challenge me on that. This this stuff this model goes from 11 commissioners to seven commissioners with less responsibilities. This model doesn't apply for our commissioners, too, to investigate the small things that really impact people's engagement. It's not just the officer involved shootings and and great bodily injuries and use of force issues. It's this respect. It's the engagement that people have with police officers. This officer called me in a racial slur. This person, you know, mentioned my sexuality. You know, those are complaints that that the PCC deals with that won't be dealt with under this model at all. As I can tell today. And so Jasmyne asked, is your time is up? I'm just there. My time is up. I'll recruit. But I'm having a tough time justifying moving forward with this model and taking it to the voters because I think it needs some work. Thank you. Thank you. So I can comment on some of that. I'm assuming that was not set in motion. So my motion would be to not approve staff to make a recommendation tonight and continue to work on our own civilian oversight model. Okay. So is there a second on that motion? I'll second. Okay, Councilman, give any comment on that. No. Just open to hearing from my colleagues. I have no one else queued up right now. I have a motion in a second. Anyone else have any comments? I guess I'd like to ask a couple of quick questions. Councilmember Austin, I hear a ton of passion in your voice, and I know you have a lot of experience in this and. I guess I would ask what a timeline would be, because I think that. It's moving in the right direction. I do agree there are some challenges. I also know that the community. Is looking for change now. And I heard you say that you think within the scope of the city manager's authority, we could make some of those changes. What would that timeline look like and how will we involve the community in that? Well, I'll just put forward my my recommendations based on what I've heard from them. People want independent commission. What? They want a commission with teeth. Well, the training for commissioners should be done independently about that, right? But the training of four police commissioners and maybe is that professional of auditor or investigator that comes in and provides that training improve the communication. The budget allows this commission to communicate with the public. The public gallery improve the public trust. Right. As it stands right now, it doesn't matter if it's a C, P, C, C, existing model or a a new model. If we don't we don't build a communication and. A way to engage the public. We're never going to have the public trust. We're going to have the same problem that we have today. Right. And so that that I don't even see that in this new model. And I think we need to staff this insurance, because you see with civilians, investigators and administrative staff, individuals that don't have conflicts necessarily. Those would be just initial. And I think one of my initial hesitations as one of the public speakers came forward today and said. Who is selecting these commissioners. And I think that that's a big question. And the integrity of the body. I think that having community input in the selection of the commissioners could be a an important factor. And so I'm open to seeing where this motion goes. And also open to letting it go to the voters and them saying that they feel the same way you do. Councilmember Alston So thank you for your passion about this important matter. Thank you, Councilwoman Ciro. Um. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm. I'm really curious. Why? What is it you know about? Because we have a from 11 commissioners to seven, which will still be part of representative, that there's still going to be city resident commissioners. So so the question I wonder I have is how is it are residents still able to make complaints to I.A. as they normally would? So people who have concerns still everyday people about the police would still be able to do that, right? That is correct. There is no change in that process in terms of them being able to go to the police department, because right now, the majority of the complaints that we receive to see PCC come directly through the police department so that process would not change. And as far as my understanding, having also served as the chair of the Citizen Police Complaints Commission, I have heard loud and clear from many of my colleagues here about I mean, one of my colleagues who I serve here shared that he feels this is a much more independent process that will allow the that that residents voices who made the complaint would be heard even more because it's not going to be going through the concerns. I've heard a lot from my colleagues who served on the commission with the concern about it going through the city manager versus now it's going to be investigated by an independent individual, will be able to look be able to review numerous materials that we don't have access to. But they will also this director would also have the ability to report to the commission on his that person's finding as well. Right. That is correct. The any report that's prepared by the director would go to the commission on and wrote to the city council. Okay. So I felt that there was a thorough process in getting feedback from our consultants and really felt like this is a redesign based on what people have asked for. Obviously, the next steps will be determined by the voters in order for us to determine how the next process will be. So I like to make a substitute motion and go back to supporting our original item on the agenda right now. Now, second, that. There's a substitute motion to go back to. I believe the the staff recommendation is that if that's the way to phrase it, to move to the charter amendment, to move to the ballot. There's a second one. Councilman Allen. Uh, let me keep going on the less councilman knowledgeably comment on the second. Okay. Councilman Austin. Thank you so much. Well, I want to be clear. I support civilian oversight very much. I was very much involved in the process. I'm just not sure that and nothing convinces me that this is going to change or add the public confidence that we're looking to of this deal. I would ask the city manager, can you do a comparison in terms of what our existing model is right now and what it what you propose to be? I thought it was $1.4 million and an additional was five staff or civilian oversight versus our current model and 2.5 full time employees. Is that correct? The current model is 2.5 employees. And the the recommendation is for an additional four employees. The net additional cost under this new model is point just shy of 1 million as point nine. 900,000 to add the additional employees and the support for the Commission. And. Well, I mean, I think, you know, obviously, you know, we want to make sure that we are a quality city when that's all we can. We're in our budget process right now, and we heard a lot of public comment about employees and workforce challenges. I would just venture to say that we have a lot of other priorities right now that we should be putting additional an additional million dollars toward right now. Or we could bolster the existing PCC with staffing. Right. And get a stronger result out of the existing model that we have today. And that's that's that's the whole my my and my only that that that's a that that's something that I think is you to taking the strong consideration. You know I understand yes we went through a a great process and doesn't mean that that that at the end of the day, we come in we're walking out with a perfect model because this is certainly what is proposed, not a perfect model. And you heard that from staff as well. You heard this. You're going to have the same criticism. There's going to have confusion. You're going to have citizens who are confused with the model and don't know who to put a report to or how to even access it. Those are challenges with the existing model that will continue to be the situation if we are all forward with what is recommended recommended today. And I would just just say to you, ultimately, the accountability for civilian oversight rests with this body at city council. Right. We are the responsible people for this. We we set the priorities. We set the tone for our city. We set the budget. We are the people that are accountable for failures in our systems. If our city manager is oversee PCC and the PCC is not functioning, then that's on us because we hire the city manager and he hires the manager for the city CC. I honestly believe that we have the ability to have a strong hybrid model, to build the model that we have with the tools that we have today. And and what we heard earlier from our police department should have been encouraging because there's a there's a culture shift within policing as well. So with that, I mean, that's fine. There's been a subsequent blessed motion. You know, we can play this game and go back and forth. I will offer to substitute. Substitute motion. Right. To. To consider to to further study this matter. Right. And and it has to come back to the city council at a later date with three options for civilian oversight that that will help meet our needs of the public trust, accountability and transparency. That's my most. Thank you. There's a substitute motion to substitute. Substitute motion? Is there a second on the substitute? Substitute motion, please. Okay. So there's a I believe there was a council on bongos. Did I hear that correctly? I'm happy to do it. I thought it was Roberto, but. I could be wrong. I'm happy to be the second. I also have a question now. Yes, it was. There was no no one's done the second yet. I heard someone from the video. I thought it was on second. Okay. There's a there's a substitute substitute motion which I think we've heard. Did you have comments come forward, Marco? I do. I'd like to ask the makers of all motions on the floor to consider a friendly amendment that. Immediately, regardless of if this passes the voters or goes to the voters, depending on which motion passes that the city manager is instructed to include the additional staffing effective October one with the passage of the new budget year . I'm comfortable with both options on the floor, but I do strongly feel that both Councilman Zorro and Councilman Austin, who served on this commission, feel that it is significantly understaffed. While we all agree that there are lots of needs in the city and that are important and we have heard from the community that they would like additional oversight. And I think that an immediate way to do that, regardless of which method we choose, is to staff the commission appropriately. So, Councilmember Austin, are you open to that friendly amendment? Absolutely. And I know that I cannot make a friendly amendment to a motion that is not currently on the floor. But should this motion fail, I ask that any subsequent motion. Consider my friendly. Thank you. I would just. Just ask. Yes? What would you think is appropriate staffing? Right. Currently we have a manager, maybe an investigator and a kind of admin or half time academy of. I think at least two investigators need to be added to this and a full time admin of. So point from 2.5 to 2 to four or five is to me would be appropriate to have. As chair of Budget Oversight Committee. I. I'm going to yield that to you and say yes. Okay. Thank you, Councilwoman. I have Vice Mayor Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just a few thoughts on this. And it's been a while since we had a substitute substitute conversation. So I'm actually kind of excited about this. Just real quick, just in terms of process, if this doesn't move forward tonight, it can't happen for the this election. It has to be reconsidered for future election. Right, 2024. I don't know that I want to pass this discussion on to a future council. I won't be a part of that council. So I would like to, you know, take some action. I will say a few things. One, I appreciate the history that was given to my you know, about how sort of the staffing had changed. And at one point it was law enforcement focused and it was more civilian. And I appreciate that. But I think that actually underscores the flaw with the PCC is that any given council or city manager with a different style or leader can have a deep have a significant impact on how effective it is. And it's largely outside of the, you know, one paragraph or so the small, you know, the description within the charter. Most of it is programmatic. And program can be powerful, certainly, but policy is progress. And I think what I like about the hybrid model is that it acknowledges that we live in systems. The police department is a system guided by policies made by people. And times change and standards evolve. But if the charter if your system isn't evolving, it's difficult to make sure that we are always getting better. And I believe that systems should always get better. Looking at a system that evaluates both the ability to go in because it's a hybrid going and review investigations. With citizens, but also to have an auditor who's like keeps a lens on trends and systems. I think that's interesting and I think that is a more modern model. I would ask that staff just pull up that slide. That compares the three models because I really I think that was really telling and I hadn't seen that slide before. No. The one that said the positives and the negatives. As I said. Okay. So, yeah, so I thought this was good. If you take review focused and auditor focused and you compare the positives, the strengths and weaknesses, I think these are some of the things that people have been asking for. So if you look at review focused because we're moving away from investigation focused because there's right now there's two investigations, there's an internal investigation and a citizen investigation. This model allows you under review to review the internal investigation and to audit trends. So here's what I think is great under potential strengths provides civilians inputs and input into the complaint. Invest into complaint investigations. That's a good thing. May increase public trust in the investigation process. That's a good thing. Then when you look at auditor monitor focused, often more robust public reporting, that's transparency. That's something people want to see. That's something I'd like to see. That's a good thing. May be more effective in promoting long term systems change in policing. That's something that's a priority for me, that we continue to have a better police department and a better city in the long term. So I actually like that long term view. I also like the slide that that highlighted that we're looking at best practices across cities that are our size. Fresno, Oakland, Riverside, Sacramento, Anaheim, when we think about policy, is always good to look at other agencies that are similar in size because as they evolve, we should evolve as well and learn from their best practices and improve on it. We should be a leader and help improve those areas as well. I also like this presentation, provide examples on how because that had that wasn't there before you provided examples on how this could be used. And you know, before I run out of time, I'm going to ask you to go over those examples again now. Not right now, but I'm gonna make a point, I think often. The discussion when things happened is what happened. I think there's not enough discussion about why it happened and how we keep it from happening in the future. And that's what's interesting to me about looking at the systems model by including the auditor controller. That's what's interesting to me. So I know that the PCC is not perfect and I know that it hasn't been funded the way it needs to be funded and that needs to be corrected. I also know there's a transition in place should this be adopted by voters, and we should fund that immediately to make sure that we don't miss a beat. But I think we have a responsibility to take what's been presented, and I like the timeline that is presented today from reconciliation, all the discussion two years ago to today. We have a responsibility to put this in front of the voters and let the voters decide. So I support moving forward with staff recommendations tonight with also adding what Councilmember Mongeau mentioned in terms of let's make some recommendations to improve CPC staffing, staffing today. And that's where I am on this. Thank you. Councilman Mongo. Thank you. I want to say that the thing that I'm frustrated with is. The. I followed this all along and I know the staff member who was leading this is no longer with the city, but. This is a. When you talk about a city as large as the Titanic and you take a step like this, this is a titanic turning decision. And I am just disappointed in the staff that this is happening at the 11th hour because I feel like the items being brought forward have put us as a council in a really tight sort of a I hope that the city brings back alternatives that are better, which I know there are some or a accept this and put it towards the voters. And if the voters feel, as some have stated today, that they're frustrated with this, I worry about the additional lack of public trust that can come from putting forward something that they don't the community doesn't feel heard their needs. I do really appreciate the points brought up by Councilmember Richardson, and I appreciate that the proposal is ambitious and says this may happen or that may happen. But I think what I heard from the community is. There's not a system to guarantee it. And I get it. We're all people. And and the system is based on the people within it and that they do the right thing and we select the right people. And I again, that's why I've been torn tonight. But I do want to appreciate the staff and the work that they've done so far to get us to where we are and to help us have a option and option. And I would just ask that. We look back at this in two years and say that items like this should be coming before the council with at least 120 days of deliberation where all presentations have been brought forward appropriately. With that, I support both the substitute substitute motion and the substitute motion, and I appreciate the staff and all the work they've done. And I think we've learned some good lessons today, and I appreciate the community for coming forward with some really good input and feedback. And I applaud Councilmember Austin for trying to make those steps to make the the resolutions and changes that he hears from the community. And I also appreciate Councilwoman Zoro and her pursuit of a solution for the the voters to consider. So thank you. Okay. Back to basically Richardson. Just one thing that I left off on. I didn't actually allow you to finish the question. I asked you to just review one time those examples that you gave, because I thought that was very compelling to help explain to the public. What we can do now that we couldn't do before. If you could just do that. That would be helpful. Thank you. The three specific different examples. So scenario number one, this is a case where the director it's it's outlining the director's authority when there is a use of force incident that's resulting in great bodily injury. The director can respond to the scene and observe the investigation and how it's being handled. They do not have the authority to do that now. They can review the complaint before it's investigated to ensure that all of the appropriate allegations surrounding that particular case are included in the investigation. There is no opportunity to do that under the current model. They can audit the case to ensure that the investigation is thorough, that it's done in a timely manner, and that it's done with the highest level of quality. Again, there is no opportunity right now for the PCC to actually audit an investigation and make recommendations based on the findings from the investigation. The director can present the recommendations for the police department. Any thing regarding policy practice or changes, those can come to the City Council under this model. That is not an authority that the see the current C PCC has where any of their recommendations come to the City Council. The director has the authority to investigate the use of force incident when it results in great bodily injury. If it's requested by the city manager, again, that is not that is not a current authority that the PCC has. So that there's example number one, that was one, there was a great bodily injury. Scenario number two, the director has the ability to respond to the scene, to observe the investigation and how it's being handled. They can rely, obviously, on their own observations of the scene when considering the evidence that's being collected and the witnesses being interviewed . Again, that's not an authority that they have currently. The commission can receive a briefing from the the police department and the director on the specific incident where it's an officer involved shooting so that they can understand how the event will be reviewed and how it will be processed by the department when the department conducts their investigation. The director can review the investigation for thoroughness, timeliness and quality. They can, based on the findings from the investigation when it's completed by the the I.A. and the the their review of the part of the investigation. They can present recommendations for the the department regarding policy or practices. And again, those recommendations will come directly to the city council for consideration. And lastly, if an officer involved shooting occurs, the Director has the authority to investigate that officer involved shooting if it's requested by the city manager. And just to go back on that one case, if you could go back 1/2 and on this one, the city manager's role here is to request that they investigate. They would not be actually conducting the investigation. The the Internal Affairs Department would continue to investigate. That is always their role. But the city manager can request a specific investigation for this type of incident. Lastly, the third is a case where there is a complaint against the command staff. The director has the authority to investigate a complaint against this, the police chief or the any of the command staff. If he's requested by the city manager, the director would conduct that investigation and provide a report of their findings directly to the city council. As I mentioned earlier, just want to point out that in this case, we talked about the communication directly with the commission. Any report that's prepared by the director would come to the commission so that there is a public review of that report when prior to its being forwarded to the City Council. Thank you very much. Lastly, the director has access to all police department records, reports, personnel and witnesses. And again, that is an authority that the the current model does not provide. Thank you, Mr. May. Go back a councilmember Superman and then come from here. Austin. Thank you. So on the slides, Linda Tatum could reiterate there. I think I heard at least on two of the bullet points. There is a. Caveat of if you. Know, asked by the city manager, my understanding was this whole idea was to give the director autonomy in the city manager. So my question is, are we just following some other cities. Model and we've or was. Is there a is there some rationale for why that. Caveat is in there on a couple of bullet points? The point of including that language in there is to stress that because this is not an investigative model, it really is designed to ensure that in some cases that are of great concern to the community that the city manager has a role or a role in asking to ensure that those incidents of interest to the community, that there is a path so that the investigator can then review those. I'm sorry, the director can then review the investigations are conducted by the police in those specific incidents. Again, it's just highlighting and encouraging greater transparency to the community in those incidents because otherwise. Well. Maybe I didn't frame my question. Right, but I'm. Unclear on. Why. The city manager has a. Role here. We're hiring a director, paying him a lot of money. Why does the director have that authority. Without without. Approval from the city manager? I see. And I understand your question again. I think the interest there was because this is not an investigative model. The idea is to try to to to not have this body or this director be consumed with investigations, because their primary role is to look at the whole process policies, procedures and operations much more systemically and to minimize the incidents in which they would need to actually go directly into reviewing a particular case. And this is well, this is. Time. I just it from comment that what I've heard generally over the years is that. The city manager did. Not act when there was an expectation that the city manager acts. I see the flaw here that we would be back. To square one. Possibly, but we spent a lot more money for the process. So in that regard, I'm tending to want to support the steps up by Councilman Brosnan. Thank you. And if I can help clarify, this is done. This really is designed where the city manager will not have authority over the director. They don't report to me, which is currently the CBC staff report to me. They report to you. So you will hire them. You will fire them. All the things that Linda mentioned, the ability to review, the ability to be on site. None of that requires city manager involvement. There was a provision, though, to say in the event that we say we want them to be more involved in an investigation, that's when the city manager could request that they be more involved in those lives, their duties. But all the reviews, what they pick, what they choose to look at, how they make the recommendations. The city manager has no involvement in that. I can't direct them and I don't want to I want them to be completely independent from me. So I just wanted to make that clarification. Thank you. I'm going to go back to actually Councilman Austin. Councilman Price, I want to make some comments and then we'll go through the votes count on behalf of our outfit. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Listen, I understand we have an election coming up in November. Right. And, you know, there are there are those on this council who are enthusiastic about, you know, making change and and getting something done right. I'm I want to get something done, but I want it to be done right. I would. Our charter gives the city council the authority to direct the city manager. Because we we are elected by the legislative body. We can direct the city manager. We don't do that. Direct any other personnel in the city. A city manager. Right. Since then, almost every council item one before the council. Right. We hired a city manager. We fired a city manager. Some wonder what's being proposed here. Is in order. Model that. The City Council would hire. Right. But nowhere in this does it say that the city council has any sort of authority to direct that individual. Two votes. Right. But you hear now is that the city manager has the ability to do that. Right. And so I think there's a there's a flaw here that that is one that that. Needs to be considered strongly. Again, I support civilian oversight. I work on one of what are the civilian oversight process to have achieved and be well versed. But I want to be thorough with it and I want they good policy. And I think, you know, there's a lot to be desired here. I'm really concerned about the excess cost. And and there's no guarantee that we're going to get the return award on this. Why are voters and by the way, you can send anything related to civilian oversight to the voters. They're probably going to pass it. Right. We understand that. We understand that. Just like, you know, there's a there's a number of other things that you just put before the voters. They're going to vote for it because in theory, they support it. Everybody supports oversight, but I think they want good policy and they want us and they're looking to us to bring forward good policy. Sound policy. But we are being fiscally responsible. Are we are we are we checking the boxes? And again, to Councilmember Michael's point, this does feel a bit bit rushed. You know, and again, we should not put something on the ballot just to say that we did it to check the box. Let's make sure we get it right. Thank you. Councilman Price. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So I did want to highlight what the city manager just reiterated, that allowing the city manager to initiate an investigation or review does not mean that the director is precluded from doing so. Is that correct? Leicester City manager. No. Can you rephrase that? I wasn't quite following the question. Can you say that again? Sure. So. So the language that Councilman Super not talked about with the provisions that allow the city manager to request an investigation or a review does not preclude the director from being able to look into matters. It's just that if they don't and the city manager wants them to or thinks that they should, they can direct them to. So I think the issue is the review versus investigation. The investigation is is conducting a specific investigation. And since that's not their role anymore, that would be with the police department, unless it was specifically requested by the city manager in certain instances as like an extra step on top of what police is doing for the reviews or anything. They want to ask questions about if they want to know about a specific complaint and what happened. They have no, they don't have to ask me. They don't have to do anything. They have the full authority to do and review at anything and everything. All policies, even specific investigations they're allowed to pull and say, I want to see 10% of all investigations that are done and review every single one of those and have all access. And they don't need city manager approval at all for that. It is just if we ask them to go into an investigative mode where, for example, if the chief of police comes under a complaint, I need to do that separately. Then in the police department, we would have the ability to request this commission to do that for us, and they would look at it completely independently. Okay. You know, I understand. I appreciate everyone's comments and I definitely do understand where everyone's coming from. But, you know, I what I don't understand is the reference to this as being this 11th hour kind of decision. We've been talking about this charter amendment for a very long time. We've taken input. We've offered comments and. And I think there's been a lot of. Input into this process already. And I think that. The voters and the residents of the city want to see us move forward with a model that's better than what we currently have. It may not be the perfect model. It may need adjustments down the road. It may need us to make further modifications in the form of additional amendments by vote of the people in the future. But I think that we've been working towards progress and my thoughts and I completely hear what you're saying, Councilman Austin, but my thoughts are if we were to go with the substitute substitute. Where does that leave us in terms of any major modifications to the commission? Does that then put us in a situation where we're looking at additional recommendations by consultants for additional models for the next election cycle? Because if that's the case, then I don't know that that's fair to the voters who have been engaged in this process up to this point. So maybe if I can have some clarification on that, because, you know, we've we've been engaged. We've all been asking questions. We've been talking to people. Some of us have talked about this, the community meetings. And so I think the process that we've we've arrived at today, to me, does not seem like an 11th hour. But that that could just be to me. But I'd like to hear your thoughts. Well, what you haven't heard is the city manager say that that he doesn't know or they lack the authority to create a hybrid model that actually can implement some of these recommendations without going to the ballot. And maybe that's a question for the city manager. Is that possible? And what can you do to create a hybrid body model that goes beyond the investigative model of potentially includes some of the review and potential maybe auditor authority? Can we create a position? I mean, without going to a ballot? I mean, is that possible? Can we tweak this this model under our current with our current model? So this is time to take your time. But that's a that's a question for. I think those are very fair questions. So I don't view it as taking my time at all. I love the answers to those questions as well. Yes, this time. So we didn't cover it tonight, but there were recommendations in the police report on how to improve the current CBC model. And if you remember back when we presented that to you back in February, when we made this decision, do we move down this road or not? We gave the option. If we don't, we would still recommend that you make improvements to the CBC. There are things, though, that we're not able to change in the charter. It specifies what they do and what they're not allowed to do. And so those we would not be able to change without going back to a charter amendment. But in terms of adding investigative staff, in terms of improving the way that we report on things, you know, there's a number of those that we can review with you that are in the report that we think are good ideas. So one way or the other, whether you support this tonight or if we don't support it tonight, we would be making changes to the CBC. And let me let me go back to Councilman Price and kind of wrap up this debate. Councilman Price, you have any additional comments or questions? The only thing that I wanted to comment on is a lot of the frustration for me is the lack of structure right now for this auditor position, for this director position. And I know that we I asked about it last week and we said that at some point once the charter amendment goes to the voters, then we would sit down and we would talk about the structure. But my concern about the position is it sounds great in theory, but I'm worried that the position could be politicized by virtue of the fact that it reports to the city council. And I mean, you know, no offense to our current structure, but, you know, people count the votes and they see where the majority is and priorities shift based on where the votes are. And that's a to me, that's a fundamental flaw with just our current process right now that we have with our city manager structure. And I don't want to see that structure. And that that's that's that's not to criticize anyone. I'm just saying it's a flaw in the process. And I would hate to see that floor carried over to an important role like this, because what we don't want is a role like this to be politicized. But I understand the structure of this position is not something that would be formed prior to being approved by the voters. But that is a concern that I have that I want to make sure that I articulate. They could count on. I think that any other I don't see any other council comments on the on the board. I want to make some comment and then we'll go to our series of votes. So I'm just going to just say a few broad comments. I do appreciate all the comments we heard today, and I especially appreciate what I'm sorry, Councilman Mungo, additional comments. Thank you. I would just amend my from the amendment to say not only should we consider the stopping, but regardless of whether or not this goes on the ballot, I think that Mr. Votacao should start a process of implementing those things that were recommended. Or at least bring back a list of those things that were recommended by the consultant that we can implement immediately. October one with the resources and that would be my modified friendly. Councilmember Austin's okay with it and I. Regardless of what happens, I proposed the same to Councilwoman Sorrell. Thank you. To that end, that's what we want to hear. So I certainly accept that from the can. Thank you. That's for the motion that's on the floor. So let me go back and save a few a few comments. So I want to just first say that I do appreciate the different opinions of the council and the community. This is a really important topic, and I think the reason why folks are struggling is because we have a system currently in place that does not work. I think we gotta be very clear about what's happened over the last couple of years. We started out this endeavor with this idea that we believe the PCC needed to have reform. And in talking to folks that currently serve, that have served in the past, it's no question that many of the folks that currently serving have served also believe that it needs to be reform more broadly speaking. We have to remember that we've been working within the confines of something that the public has passed, and it's been in place now for decades. At the end of the day, the idea of a reformed and reformed commission is to provide more police accountability for there to be more direct accountability from the public to our police department and to build trust. The current system we have and we've had incredible people serving on it, including two members of our city council, is not providing the level of oversight that I believe this moment and the public have demanded. And so we can choose to continue doing what we've been doing in the past. That, in my opinion, has not worked. But there have been there have been good efforts. And the people that serve on these commissions have done really, really great work and have worked really hard to be the best possible commissioners that they can be . So this is not on them. It's a system that we have in place or we can actually try to make some reforms and created more a system that is more accountable, which I believe the public has been demanding in protests and letters in coming before us and asking us to do more in in this area personally, particularly during the George Floyd protests that happened and all the actions around Black Lives Matter that were happening. I personally made a commitment to many community members that we would look at the PCC as a place that needed reform. To me, I think at the center of what makes this proposal strong is the auditor system that is appointed accountable to. The City Council. And in a democracy, any time you make a position more accountable or directly accountable to the body, which is accountable to the public, I think it's a stronger system. The the city council only appoints a not even a handful of physicians. You appoint a city manager and you appoint a city clerk. Those are the two positions that actually this body actually hires. This would create a third direct report. Where you would have an auditor system but is also accountable to the council. And the council is the democratic representative of the public. And if the public demands change are going to go through the council, they go to the mayor and sort of create a system where you don't have a layer of bureaucracy which currently exists within the system we have now. And the city manager, you're actually creating a position that is as close to the public as possible, in my opinion, in a representative government, which is why I think this model is so unique. It has, and I think the potential is really strong. I also want to add, as far as it concerned, some of the concerns that were brought up and I respect all of them. I'm not concerned with costs. This is a incredibly important issue. And you know what? We're talking about 100 hundreds of thousands of dollars or millions of dollars. We're talking about ensuring that people feel that their law enforcement is accountable to the public. And so I think the cost is worth the investment that the city should make. And I think we think that the public has demanded us to invest in ways that bring transparency. And I think this this reform commission is able to do so. I will also just note that. This initial proposal was brought to the Council in February, I believe it was February, January, February, and the staff have been working at the direction and input of the Council to actually present what it actually is in front of us. So this has been a a build building block on building block of different types of suggestions from from the public. And I will also say, see this and I disagree some I actually trust voters. I believe that that people can go to the ballot and make decisions on what's in front of them. And I do believe that we either choose to continue the system we have now for another couple of years because this would not be able to be on the ballot. It's a charter amendment, I believe, until 2024. Or we put a different model in front of the voters for them to decide. But this other additional model could be better. I personally believe this model that that is being proposed by staff and the consultants and the community input is a better model. Is it the exact model that I personally would have written or designed myself? I think it would have been something that I may have made different, but it's a consensus that staff and folks that you guys consulted, including current commissioners, former commissioners in the community developed. And so I do support moving forward with this recommendation of putting this on the ballot. I understand that other folks may not support that, and that's okay. And we have different opinions on that. But I will add that there are very few things that are stronger than a new direct report to this body. One which I will not serve on you will all of you will still be here, and that the public can hold this council accountable to the actions of the auditor and how the auditor is monitoring and investigating any issues that relates to law enforcement, the police department, which is which is why I support bringing this forward. But to the public to vote on it. I believe, Councilman, I'll see you cued up again. Councilmember Austin. Yes. Mr. Mayor, you said a lot there. I won't respond to everything, but I will just say that I will remind everybody here that I was the city council member about for the initial motion to request for reform of the P.C.C. So I still very strongly support reforming the PCC. I think I've talked about starving thought PCC for many years. And with all due respect, Mr. Mayor, you have 14 years to care about funding PCC and civilian oversight. We haven't gotten to that point yet. And so we could throw we could have we could have put a lot of resources into the existing model that we have to to to build that public confidence, to build the public trust, to to to ingratiate that that that commission with the voters and with the residents of the city. We failed. And I would say as a collective body, the city council has failed in that regard and we need to eat it. So if my motion fails tonight, that's fine. I mean, you've weighed in, Mr. Mayor. That's great. I will support the subsequent motion to put this on the ballot, if that's the case. But I can't guarantee you that that I will I will recommend people vote for this, because I see some inherent flaws in the policy. And and I think we can do a lot better without going to the ballot. I think we could we could we could fix this internally. Everything doesn't need to go to the ballot. And and when go to a constitutional amendment right, the only way to fix it is going back to the ballot. Okay. That's that's if we've learned anything from from this this exercise 30 years ago when Alan Lowenthal brought the PCC, the existing model to the city of Long Beach, a city council member, and he championed this as a as a model. We are now, 30 years later, looking to amend it because the only way we can do that is go into the ballot. Right. But I also say that there are there are tools that we can employ as a city council and with our city manager to fix the model. There were a number of recommendations in that study that we're well aware of, and obviously that wasn't part of the presentation. There are a number of recommendations in this study that could be employed and put forward tomorrow to fix the PCC and make it a more robust commission and more responsive to the residents. So with that, I'm done. I'm happy to take the vote getting a vote now in the end of the session. Thank you. We're going to go to a vote. I accept. I heard Councilman Price's additional comment. I just have one clarifying question, Mr. Mayor. If we wanted to have additional changes and we didn't put it on the ballot tonight or approve this, would it be 2024? Would that be the next time or would it be 2020 when one would be the next opportunity? Mr. America. Charter changes are only allowed on the general election, so every two years you can do a charter change. Got it. Okay. Thank you. 2024. Thank you. Thank you. We have a motion by Councilmember Austin and second by Councilwoman Mango. That is a sub substitute motion. Please roll call and cast your votes, please. Councilwoman Cindy has. You may. Catwoman? Allen No. Councilwoman Price. Nay. Councilman. So. But now. I. Councilwoman Mangum. I. Councilwoman Sarah. Ney. Council member TURANGA. They. Councilman Austin. I. Face May Richardson. Now. Motion fail. We have the substitute motion, which I believe was by Councilwoman Sato and I believe the second with the Councilwoman Allen. And we'll do a roll call vote, please, on the Councilman Sato's motion. Excuse me, Mayor. I don't. Know that. I think. Councilmember Mongo asked that her friendlies be. Considered on this motion if it was going to be heard. And I don't know that there's been an acceptance of those. I haven't heard. You. I haven't heard an acceptance of the friendlies. Is there. Would you want to repeat those really quickly? Councilman Mongo? Yes, thank you. I would like to request a friendly amendment to the motion on the floor that. Regardless of if the voters approve or don't approve the ballot initiative in November that effective in October through our budget process, we allocate funds to step up the DCC and work and ask the city manager to bring back a list of the recommendations that were provided by the consultant that he plans to implement. Immediately. Thank you. I will accept your initial friendly to look to supporting the CPC, but not the additional second part of the friendly that was added later to looking at a list of stuff that additional additional. I just. Well, let's take the part about looking into supporting CPC, looking at the funding source. Additionally. Okay. So that part of the family's been accepted and comes in. Councilman Allen, you accept? Okay, so roll call vote, please. Councilwoman Cindy has. Hi. Councilman Allen. I Councilwoman Price. I know Councilman Spano. I can tell you in mango. I. Councilwoman Sarah. I can't. Member Ranka. I. Councilman Austin. I. Vice Mayor Richardson, I. The motion is carried. Thank you. That concludes that item. We're going to be going to item 26, please, Madam Clerk.

Recommendation to request City Attorney to draft a resolution in support of the establishment of the Law Enforcement Work Inquiry System (LEWIS) Registry, and request City Manager to have the Long Beach Police Department partner with the LEWIS Registry at the University of Southern California Price Safe Communities Institute, to help in the development, pilot and Beta-testing of a unified national database that documents all officers who were terminated or resigned due to misconduct.

LongBeachCC_08242021_21-0815

item. And then after the budget, we will do all the other items on the agenda after the budget hearing. So let's go ahead and do item 23, please. Communication from Councilman Austin, Councilwoman Zendejas, Councilwoman Allen, Councilwoman Sara recommendation to request city attorney to draft a resolution in support of the establishment of the Law Enforcement Work Inquiry System. And request City Manager to have the Long Beach Police Department partner with the Lewes Registry. Gentlemen. Thank you so much. First, I'd like to thank my colleagues, our council members and their hearts, Alan and Sorrel, for joining me on this item. And obviously, following the murder of George Floyd last year, one of the proposed reforms called for in policing at the federal and state levels was to create a nationwide registry of law enforcement officers who had been fired from this conduct, which would help curtail the ability of those officers to be hired elsewhere. The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act passed the House of Representatives in March of 2021, and among its provisions, the Act would create a nationwide police misconduct registry at the Justice Department. However, as we all know, the prospects of passing the Senate and becoming law still remain uncertain. This is also one of the reforms identified here that are all city of Long Beach. One of the action items in the city's initial report on Racial Equity and Reconciliation Initiative. One of the goals of redesigning the police approach to community safety is to participate in policy reforms, efforts at the state and federal levels to establish a federal or statewide database of complaints against police officers to inform hiring decisions. And that's a quote from our our own policy. And this if that was passed, tonight's recommendations specifically address this goal. The USC Price Safe Communities Institute is working on establishing the first comprehensive, publicly available national catalog to collect data regarding officers fired or who resigned because of misconduct. Law enforcement agencies will also be able to access this critical analytical data regarding trends as well as patterns of potential miscount conduct casualties. The database is named for late civil rights pioneer Representative John Lewis. It's called the Law Enforcement Work Inquiry System or Lewis Registry. The objective is to restore the public trust of law enforcement's. Officers serving the community while also helping departments hire the best police candidates. And we all know that our city, Long Beach, has been proactive in recent years to implement policies addressing the use of force. This Council has been supportive of that and we've established the Office of Constitutional Policing and the Police Department this past year to re-imagine traditional policing, to foster equitable and constitutional public safety for our entire community. Long Beach is also the thorough background. I'm sorry. Long Beach already does thorough background checks for hiring of police officers, one that exceeds state standards, according to Long Beach PD. And I will have a few questions for our police department just a little later. But I think it's very important that we introduce who the Lewes Registry is and allow them to talk a little bit about their program. And so I'd like to allow Dr. Earl Suthers and I welcome Dr. Earl Suthers and Dr. Loren Brown, the USC, S.I. postdoctoral scholar. I'd also invite them to give a brief presentation about the overview of the Lewis registry, and they can step forward. Welcome, Dr. Scissors. Thank you. Councilmember Austin Councilmember Mongo now. Good to see you, Dr. Garcia. John, it's an honor privilege to be here in the interest of full disclosure. I became a police officer 40 years ago. I wanted to be the solution to some of the problems that we were trying to fix. I served in three law enforcement agencies, the Santa monica Police Department. I ended my uniform career at the L.A. Airport Police as assistant chief of Homeland Security Intelligence. And in between, I served in the FBI. I'm honored now to be the director of the Safe Release Institute. And if I could just show you a couple of items here to demonstrate how we have reached out over the past year to work on this initiative. As the councilmember mentioned, named after John Lewis. And we're honored and privileged to be able to name it after him. In this case, the acronym worked quite well for us because there's a law enforcement work inquiry system. And they're saying here that John Lewis used to always say, this really fits our mission with regards to the Lewis registry. There's a couple of things that we hope to achieve with this. Number one, all neighborhoods, communities want transparency with their agencies. We think we can have this now because we'll have a database. It's publicly available. I used to be a background investigator and now Background Office officers can go to the Lewis registry and in a matter of seconds, save thousands of dollars and many hours to find out that the applicant sitting across from them might be someone who's been fired someplace else. And you all know that California is one of five states in the country that when you get fired, you keep your certification. And so we want to eliminate that and keep armed officers from wandering. We are a research university, so obviously we're all about data. So we intend to collect information so we can come up with predictive indicators that can reduce the risk of officers having these problems and getting terminated. Increased retention in his department. And last but not least, we hope to influence policy. When I was at Santa monica, we had term limits on special details like narcotics and gangs because of the challenges that those officers may face after long periods of assignment in those roles. A couple of data points I'd like to share with you in this very brief presentation. Last year we went across all three political parties. We got 80% support for the Lewes Registry, 74% from Republicans, 90% Democrat, and 76% from Independent. This past couple of months, we reached out to 360 law enforcement executives, mostly municipal chiefs across the United States. We asked them, do you support creating a national registry of law enforcement officers who've been fired for misconduct? 76% said yes, whether they supported it or not. We then asked them in the second question if the national registry existed. Would you use the registry as part of your applicant screening process? Almost 95% said yes. I'll just end this by saying we have a diverse collection of supporters. Those are some of our most noteworthy people there, as you can see across the country. We have briefed the L.A. County Chiefs. We have the support of Art Acevedo to major cities chiefs. We have activists, we have academics, we have citizens, we have communities, and we hopefully have you. And I'll just end this by saying thank you for your time. We have 22 departments that are already on board the PAC 12 Chiefs, as well as the UC system chiefs. If you approve this recommendation, you'll be the first municipal agency in the United States to partner. With the Louis Registry formally. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much, sir. Councilman. Sir. Thanks, Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Southers, for etc.. I'm sorry, Sutter. Thank you, Mr. Sutter. So I want to thank Councilmember Austin for bringing this item forward with my colleagues. Councilmember Sunday has an Allen. You know, I think it's just so important to have transparent hiring practices in our police department and to have people who aren't, you know , coming that we're aware of what their background is when they're coming into the department and that it's really also crucial to building as I you know, I think, you know, share it is building stronger relationships with the public as well as the police department. And, you know, the public should know who's protecting and serving them. And, you know, and we've seen the possible outcome of police misconduct, and we should do what we can to avoid it. And I and this the chair of the Public Safety Committee and previous member of the Citizen Police Complaint Commission, building accountability within LPD is very important to me as well as transparency. So thank you so much. I support this item and I hope my colleagues will as well. Thank you, Councilman Mongo. Thank you. Thank you for coming today. It has been a while, but I always appreciate your presentations and the great work that you're doing and I'm in full support of this item. And if I can be of any help in onboarding additional agencies, please don't hesitate to ask or we're definitely grateful for what you're doing. And and any opportunity to spread this work across the country only helps every agency. That's a part of it. Thank you. Madam Clerk. Any public comment? There's one public comment, Mr. Sand. I can very. So I can feel sixth district. I'm coming out today in support. Of the Lewis law. Enforcement work increase system that I'm trying to get the the acronym in order. I'm a big fan of Dr. Sanders and the work that he's been doing. I almost had a TSA head here just a couple of years ago. So it's an honor to have you here in the city, sir. This is a conversation about transparency. I think as members of the public, we can see various examples of why, you know, 18,000 plus law enforcement agencies across America should have the opportunity to have open ended dialog with one another about misconduct and past and former members of the police departments in various parts of the country. Should we, you know, municipalities should know who they're hiring and who they might not know who they're hiring. You know, we had a members of a Los Angeles Sheriff's Department gang clique, colloquially known as the Lynwood Vikings that had a Justice Department investigation in the late eighties. And a couple of members were fired and then proceeded to be hired later on into the Dallas Police Department and then create more misconduct. You know, when there's a pattern and behavior here is it needs to be public discourse, both from the community and on the municipal side with who is wearing these uniforms. This is a great opportunity to to disconnect the good from the bad. And I think that the city of Long Beach would be a leader. Within the justice, um, restorative justice conversation. As well as opening and repairing and mending some of the, the poor rapport between the public and our law enforcement with these kind of opportunities. So here in support and thank you for your time. Thank you very much, Richardson. Thanks, Mr. Mayor. So I wanted to chime in and just say, I think this is a great resolution. Resolutions can have an important make an important impact, particularly when other jurisdictions will follow you. And Long Beach has a history of when we move, other jurisdictions move, being a large, you know, second largest city in L.A. County and the second largest city in the entire 191 city sky region. This is important. So thank you, Councilman Ellison, for bringing it forward. I think this is one of many tools out of last year's reconciliation process, a number of tools. And they don't have to all be local tools. They can be statewide or regional and national tools to help us turn the corner and and be a city that really leans into racial equity. And this is a tool that I think just makes a lot of sense. And so I'm happy to support this resolution today. Thank you. Something awesome. I just wanted to thank my colleagues and the public for speaking out. Thanks for the presentation, Dr. Suthers. I wanted to ask a couple of questions of our own police department. I see Chief Luna kind of cued up. What is our current? Recruitment and training practices for four lateral officers hired into the department. Former officers were hired into the department. Mr. Mayor. Members of the city council. Thank you, Councilman Austin, for bringing this item forward. And the question for any lateral officer, just like any officer that we hire. I'd like to think that we have the highest of standards actually, for anybody who applies, less than 2% of the people who apply become Long Beach police officers because our standards are so high. We background everybody. We spend about 40 or 50 hours just to make sure that you fit our qualifications. So from a perspective of hiring anybody who has been terminated for a cause for it from another police department, we just don't hire those kind of people. Now, if somebody has been dismissed for maybe report writing or something else, that's something we may look at. But it's rare. But if you have anybody that's been dismissed from another police agency for moral turpitude, moral turpitude, ethical reasons, policy violations, which would include use of force and officer involved shootings. We just do not hire. I think that might speak to my second question. To your knowledge, has or does Romney's police department employ any formerly terminated officers, officers who have been terminated for misconduct? Currently. During the six and a half years that I've been chief of police. No, I have not. Well, that's refreshing. And and, you know, I think this action tonight actually speaks to to transparency, accountability, all of the. Things that our community cares about, but also this council cares about. I think this item is one that obviously I support and encourage my my colleagues to support. I think of us participating in this registry will make us a. Because stand out as a city but also plants our flag and that we care about the the the integrity of the work and understand that it's a privilege to be a police officer in the city of Long Beach or any city for that matter. Those are my comments. Again, thank you so much for indulging me and appreciate your chief for pronouncing those questions. Make a contribution to. Thank you, Mayor, and thank you all for bringing this forward. Councilmember Austin. Sorry. Dr. Summers out of here. Remember me? But when you were here, you worked in Long Beach for a couple of years as our youth coordinator, I think, if I'm not mistaken. At that time, I was a recruitment officer for the city of Long Beach. And as I constantly say, what am I? Duties at that time was to recruit for police officers. Ah. We had a lateral officer opportunity. That was a continuous examination opportunity. During that time, I'm not sure that we still have lateral officers that posted as a job opportunity. Yes, sir, we do. Okay. So we still get some applications or guessing of other officers from other jurisdictions and other departments as well. We do. It's a few, not as many as we do on our own when we recruit, hire and train them ourselves, sir. So I think that this motion here, I think, is long overdue. There was always a concern that could I be out in the field recruiting? And I had officers recruit with me to go find the best and the brightest to work for the city of Long Beach. There was always that concern being raised about laterals. They're not they're not the most. That that they're not the most qualified. But there's there's issues. There's a reason, as they would say, why they want a lateral from one department to another. But I never heard that they didn't want to come into law because it was about because it was the best that that was always at the top of their intent is to come to the best department that they could possibly find. So. But at the end of the day, it's about backgrounds and how qualified are they? And is there any kind of a blemishes on their on the record that we need to know about, and especially those that the chief mentioned that are of grave concern, especially when you talk about violations of policy or others, other things in the background. So thank you for bringing this forward and thank you for all the work you've done throughout the years. Dr.. So there's somewhat followed your career. You also worked in D.C., so I mean, you're just very, very proud that I got to know you and still know you. And congratulations, I'm bringing this forward. Thank you. Now someone's in the house. Thank you, Mayor, and thank you very much, Mr. Sutter, for this presentation. And I think that this is very much something that we as a city and as a department, I think need and will well, kind of be a little bit better into helping us build the trust that there is that we're lacking here in the community between the community and our police department. So I'm very hopeful and very thankful to Councilmember Austin for bringing this forward and for allowing me to sign on to such an important item, especially being one of the city's first cities. To actually participate in this register, I think is something that we should all be very proud of. So thank you. And Councilman Allen. Thank you, Mayor. And thank you council member Austin and Councilman Sun, Hoss and Ciro for signing on to this item. It's something that I feel strongly about. And as a former police officer, I, too, don't condone any misconduct in any form. And please percussion. And I agree with you. Dr. Sudders, on your comments. And your experience and your. Insight is. Incredible. So I appreciate you taking the time. To speak with us today. As a person who also. Did background investigations for the for the police department. I'm proud of what we did here in Long Beach. We did very extensive investigations, and I'm proud of that work. I'm I think. That this system is just another tool that can help all. The agencies across the country. And I hope that they can use it and they will use it. We have to take steps to make sure that officers who are fired for misconduct. It's easy for other agencies to know about that, and the. Information is also readily. Available for those backgrounds. I think this is. Just a concrete step forward. To include to increase public trust and help departments hire the best police candidates. So I'm just. Happy to sign on to this and thank you so much for bringing this forward. Members, please cast your votes. Motion is carried. Thank you. Then we will do the vaccination report. And then we'll go on to the budget.

AN ORDINANCE relating to cable television; authorizing the Mayor or the Mayor’s designee to approve the transfer of control, subject to conditions, of WaveDivision I, LLC; authorizing the Mayor or the Mayor’s designee to execute a Cable Franchise Transfer of Controlling Interest Consent Agreement for the purpose of implementing and administering the transfer; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_04262021_CB 120043

The report of the Transportation and Utilities Commission. Agenda Item two Council Bill 120043. An ordinance relating to. Cable television authorizing. The mayor or the mayor's designee to approve the transfer of control subject to conditions of Waive Division one LLC. Authorizing the mayor. Or mayor's designee to execute a cable franchise. Transfer of controlling interest consent agreement for the purpose of implementing and administering the transfer and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. The Committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you so much. Councilmember Peterson is chair of the committee. You were recognized in order to provide the committee's report. Thank you. Council president, colleagues, as I mentioned during our council briefing this morning, this is council 120043, which pertains to one of our city's cable franchise agreements, specifically the Ways Company. This legislation simply has the city consent to the transfer of controlling interest in the parent company of where the city has the cable franchise agreement with Waive Division one LLC and Waive will remain the franchise grantee with the Waive brand and operations continuing as is in Seattle for customers. Seattle Municipal Code Section 21.6 0.110 requires us to consider even partial transfers of parent company ownership for cable franchises, and the federal law has a timeline for this consent. With that deadline approaching soon. Our Seattle Information Technology Department completed a thorough review of the proposed transfer and engaged both financial and legal experts to assist with the analysis. They all recommend approval as part of the approval are having the city receive from the company a strong corporate guarantee and consent agreement, which requires continued performance and service to customers. Seattle City presented all of this to our Transportation and Utilities Committee, and our committee unanimously recommends approval today. Thank you. Thank you so much, Councilmember Peterson. Are there any additional comments? Hearing no additional comments. Will the court please call the role on the passage of the bill? Paris by Louis. I. Morales. Yes. Peterson. Yes. Sergeant. Yes. Strauss. Yes. Herbold. Yes. And Council President Gonzalez. I favor Nipost. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Item three Will the clerk please read item three into the record?

A RESOLUTION relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation; authorizing the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation to act as the authorized representative/agent on behalf of the City of Seattle and to legally bind the City of Seattle with respect to the Project(s) below for which the City seeks grant funding assistance managed through the Recreation and Conservation Office.

SeattleCityCouncil_09242018_Res 31842

Very good. Any further comments? Those in favor of confirming the appointments. Please vote i. I. Those oppose vote no. The motion carries. The appointments are confirmed. Adoption of other resolutions. Please read agenda item number 28. Adoption of other resolutions. Agenda item 28 Resolution three 2042. Relating to the Department of Parks Recreation authorizing Superintendent of Parks and Recreation to act as the Authorized Representative Agent on behalf of the City of Seattle and to legally bind the City of Seattle with respect to the project below, for which the city seeks grant funding assistance managed through the Recreation and Conservation Office. Councilmember Suarez. Thank you. This resolution is the city's application for grant funding of 5.5 million awarded by the State Recreation and Conservation Office. Grant funds will be used to support 12 Parks and Recreation Capital projects. The committee was briefed on September 19th and is supportive of this legislation. I recommend that Council pass through Resolution 3184 to move. To adopt. Oh, no. That's it, right? That's good. Okay, I'm done. All right. Any further comments on this? All right. I move to adopt resolution 31842. Is there a second? Okay. Those in favor of adopting the resolution, please vote. I, i those oppose vote no. The motion carries. The resolution is adopted. Cheryl, sign it. Is there any further business to come before the council? No. Okay. Hearing. Then we stand adjourned. And everyone, have a great afternoon.

Recommendation to adopt resolution to authorize City Manager to participate in a Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) with the United States Department of the Navy, and provide up to $16,000 in in-kind services as the City’s portion of the JLUS cost-share agreement. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_04072015_15-0297

Item 16. Report from City Manager. Recommendation to adopt resolution to participate in a joint land use study with the United States Department of the Navy and provide up to 16,000 and in-kind services as the city's portion of the cost share agreement citywide. There's been a motion and a second. Is there any public comment on the item? Yes, sir. Very good. You. I have not had an opportunity to check the staff report. What type? What areas are we talking about? What coastline are we talking about? Well, as you know, you know, you don't get to ask questions of staff. So what I will do, though, be security just because I'm in a good mood. Mr. West, do you want to just do a you can take a seat and I'll call you back up for the rest of your. Sir Diana Tang will give a quick report. Mayor, members of the city council, the Joint Land Use Study is a partnership. With the Department of. Defense. It's a cooperative planning effort, actually, between. The military installations. So in our case, Naval Weapons Station, SEAL Beach on the Pacific coastline by Long Beach and. SEAL Beach, California, and the surrounding community. And it's designed to promote community growth and development that is compatible with an installation's training and operational missions. And we do these types of joint land use studies often. So it's a it's pretty routine for us. Okay. Please continue your public comment. I still have a. Sometimes I just continue to get clarification. So we are not talking about any actual coastline. Within the jurisdiction of the city of Long Beach at this time, is that correct? Well. Mr. SINGH. Sure, Mr. Mayor. The city's interest in the study is actually related to the explosives in Grange on the east end of the Long Beach breakwater. And we're hoping that through the Joint Land Use. Study, we'll be able to obtain some information that may be able to supplement our East San Pedro Bay ecosystem restoration study. And so the study is mainly focused on naval weapons station SEAL Beach, which is primarily in. The city of SEAL Beach, in the county of Orange. But we are interested in explosives in large piece. Of it, which is. Off the Long Beach coastline, but not on the Long Beach coastline. Seaward landward of the sea, seaward or landward. That's it. That's it. No more questions. Finish your. Public comment and. Continue. I want to make sure that we're not. Doing anything yet with great water, which eventually we will. I'm very concerned about doing anything that might. Engender the need for mitigation someplace else. You can't step. Any place. Can't do anything in the coastline. Without it having a impact someplace else within our coastline. And I want to know where that is. If we don't know, say something. Just say we haven't the faintest idea what we're doing. But what you need to understand and what so many people fail to understand if you move a square foot of terra firma on the sea floor over here, it impacts it over there. You disturb and ruin. Marine habitat. And then you have to replace that at a 2 to 1 ratio someplace else. So I want to make sure that when you're walking down and you're tearing up or it looks boring and decide we're going to build something here. What's the impact at the other end of the pike, as it were, or the other end of the break? We're. Please consider that we can't afford more buffoonery. Thank you. Please cast your votes. Ocean carries seven zero. Thank you and excited. Item 17 Report from City Manager Recommendation to approve the Revolving Loan Fund Program Administrative Plan required by the Economic Development Administration and adopt resolution authorizing the Economic Development Commission to designate three of its three of its members as the Revolving Loan Fund Committee responsible for administering the program under the plan citywide.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the financing of the Transportation Fund; authorizing interfund loans up to a total amount of $15,000,000 from multiple City funds as bridge financing to be repaid by the proceeds of a future surplus property sale.

SeattleCityCouncil_11222021_CB 120223

Thanks so much. Council Bill 120202 Agenda item 27 passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Please read the title of item 28 into the record. Agenda Item 28 Council Bill 120223. An ordinance relating to the financing of the Transportation Fund authorizing interphone enter fund loans up to a total amount of $15 million from multiple city funds as bridge financing to be repaid by the proceeds of a future surplus property sale. The committee recommends the bill pass the council members Macheda Herbold, Gonzalez, Suarez, Lewis, Morales and Strauss in favor and counsel Peterson abstaining. Thank you so much. Are there any comments on Council Bill 120223 Agenda item 28 We are now on agenda item 28 and looking for comments, if any. See no hands raised. Will the clerk please call the role on the passage of Council Bill 120223. Agenda Item 28. Yes. Strauss. Yes. HERBOLD. Yes. Whereas I. Lewis. Yes. Morales. Yes. Mosquera. I Paterson High Council President Gonzalez I nine in favor and unopposed. Pete, thank you so much. Council Bill 120223 agenda item 28 passes and the chair will sign it. Will Clark, please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Will the clerk please read the title of item 29 into the record? Agenda Item 29 Council Bill 120228 An ordinance relating to taxation increasing the commercial parking tax and amending subsection 5.35.030. B of the Seattle Ministerial Code. The committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you so much. Are there any comments on Council Bill 120228.

A MOTION making an appointment to fill a judicial vacancy in the southeast division of King County district court.

KingCountyCC_04052017_2017-0161

At our special meeting on March 29th, the committee selected five final candidates for two vacancies in the Southeast Division. We will be interviewing those candidates this morning. Welcome to you all. Thank you for being here today. And I thank you all for participating in this process. It's been it's taken a while. And we appreciate your patience. But we want it's a very important decision. We will make sure we get it right after the interviews. I expect that we will go into executive session to discuss the candidates qualifications and then after that, we will come back into open session. And if we are ready, then we will take action on the motions. So we'll begin with a brief staff report and then go right into the interviews and I will turn to our committee staff. Leah Zoghbi for the staff report. Welcome. Laughs Good morning, council members I'm Leah Crackles I'll be counsel staff and the materials for this item begin on page nine of your packet. There are currently two vacant judicial vacancies in the Southeast Division of the King County District Court. Under state law, the King County Council is directed to fill district court vacancies by appointment. The King County Code provides. A merit selection process for filling such vacancies, which includes advertising existing or anticipated vacancies rating interested applicants by the King County Bar Association and any other bar association with an established Judicial Candidate. Evaluation Procedure Review of all the candidates and interviews of the final candidates by the Council's Committee of the whole and then final appointment by the King County Council. The nominees are the appointees. Will serve until a successor is elected this November, and they will be eligible for to run for election. On page 23 of your packet, you will find a table that summarizes the candidates bar association ratings. And at the beginning. Of or beginning on page 29. Of your packet, there's a table prepared by council staff that compares the candidates, according to some of the criteria found within the judicial questionnaires that. They've each filled out for the Bar. Association process. In addition, you've each received a binder with a more comprehensive information about the qualifications of each candidate. And that concludes my staff report. All right, thank you. So the process we're going to follow today is we're going to interview one candidate at a time to maintain fairness. I'll ask the candidates who are not yet have not yet been interviewed to wait in the council conference room outside the dais here with the audio off until it's their turn to be interviewed during each interview, we're going to give each candidate an opportunity to make an opening statement of up to 2 minutes. Then we're going to ask a series of questions with up to 3 minutes. To answer each question, we've allotted approximately 20 minutes for each candidate, and I'm going to try to give everyone a closing statement of up to 2 minutes. But we're going to have to watch the clock and see how much time we really have for closing statements. I'm going to ask you to be a little flexible, if you would. If you have anything to say, my suggestion would be get it out before the closing statement in case we run long. Thank you for that. Questions will be the same for all candidates, though we will. There may be a limited number of follow up questions from members on the committee. So there's a set of warning lights here to help people keep within limits. The countdown timer will show the time remaining. When 30 seconds are left, the yellow light will go on, and when the time is up, the red light will go on. So candidates should not feel obligated to use the full time that is allowed, but of course that is the amount of time you have. So you may use it if you choose. When a candidate's interview is over, you're welcome to remain in the council. Will Chambers at that point and we'll carry on and have staff bring in the next candidate until we're done. So we're going to do this in alphabetical order. I would like to ask if you would escort all of the candidates to the conference room now live, and we're going to see if we can't get a few more members down here before we start with the first candidate so that everybody has a chance to be heard by as many people as possible. Thank you. We're going to be at recess for just a few minutes. We are prepared to get started with our interview of candidates for District Court in the Southeast District. Our staff is now going to bring in Ms.. Edmiston, our first candidate. And again, just for those who are joining, we are going we have five candidates. We are going in alphabetical order. There will be an opening statement of up to 2 minutes. We have a series of five questions which we have assigned to councilmembers who graciously volunteered to ask questions. And we are all those folks are here. Welcome, Ms.. Edmiston. And then just continuing on each candidate, council members will have up to 3 minutes to answer. Each of the questions will be using the time are here in front of me and then they will be offered an opportunity to give up to a two minute closing statement , although I have asked them to be flexible with that because we are starting a little late and we want to get through everybody and have time to deliberate today as well. All right, Miss Edmiston, welcome. Thank you so much for being here. Thank you. Would you please go ahead and make your opening statement of up to 2 minutes? I will. Thank you all for taking the time to interview me this morning. I'm very grateful for the opportunity. As you know, from my materials. I'm Bobby Edmiston. I'm here today seeking appointment to the Southeast Division of the King County District Court. My diversity of experience has given me the knowledge and perspective to be a good judge in the district court. I have a wealth of criminal practice experience, having represented clients in both felony and misdemeanor cases. I also have a wide variety of civil practice experience, including my current practice area representing parents and children, independency matters, representing parents accused of being in contempt of court related to child support, and representing refugee and immigrant clients in public benefits cases, as well as victims of domestic violence in the family, law and protection order contexts. But what I want to emphasize for you all about that experience is that I know the King County District Court and specifically the South Division. I've spent approximately 70% of my career working in the King County District Court in the Southwest and South divisions. In addition to the diversity of experience I already shared, I also have the appropriate temperament to be a good judge and a fundamental belief in the respect and the dignity of all who come before me. Attributes that come with me daily in my practice, representing my clients and working with my professional colleagues. And that will transition with me to the bench where I will ensure that all who appear before me, whether the accused, law enforcement, victims, witnesses or aggrieved parties, will be treated with respect and have their dignity maintained. Thank you. Thank you very much. The first question will be asked by Council member Cole Wells. Thank you about chair and I miss anything other than what you've already told us. What do you believe is most important about your background for this position? And, and why do you really want to be a district court judge? I read something interesting this morning that I'd like to share with you all as as a start to answering this question. I was reading an article about racial disparity within the court system. And it starts off with a quote that I will paraphrase where they indicate that our laws are the promise to our citizens and others before us. Our justice system is how we keep that promise. And that that quote really spoke to me in my current role as a public defender. And it speaks to why I want to sit behind the bench as a judge in district court. I think that it is very. Important for a judge to recognize not only the legal issues that face the court, but also the social issues, the issues of and access to justice that we see, the issues of racial disparity within those who are charged, those who populate our jails as well, those who are released pretrial and who are not. I think that that recognition and a commitment my personal commitment to. Being introspective and very honest with myself in terms of what I bring, what I bring with me, what baggage, for lack of a better term or what. What cultural issues? Come with me. Is something that's important. And I. I get concerned that that can be overlooked by judges. And looking at that. Speaking to the issues of, for example, pretrial release, which is one of the issues that I noted, where I'm concerned about disparities. We have a wonderful court rule. And I think that I as a judge will be a person who can. Act upon the mandate of that court rule. Maintaining that promise, tying back to the quote that I paraphrase of a quote that I shared with you all at the beginning. Maintain that promise to our citizens to uphold that court rule that presumes release. Absent risk of violence is within the community or absent. Risk of substantial risk of failure to appear. And I think that that requires a level of courage to maintain. A fidelity to the text of that rule. That is something that I have developed over the course of my career as a public defender, being courageous enough to argue new and novel legal issues even when they're unpopular. Recently sinking an emergency contempt finding against the Department of Social and Health Services when the question of whether emergency contempt actually exists is a legitimate question. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember McDermott. Would you like to ask the next question, please? Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm one oppose a hypothetical situation and ask how you would respond to it. A defendant in your courtroom is displaying mental health or behavioral issues in being disruptive. How would you maintain control of your courtroom while also respecting the rights of the defendant? So this is a scenario that I've seen in my practice and I've seen it handled well, and I've seen it handled in a way that escalated the situation. As I indicated in my opening statement, something that's very important to me is maintaining the dignity and demonstrating a respect for all who appear in my courtroom. In that situation, I think that to a certain level, if the court proceedings can be maintained in an orderly fashion, despite the individual's behaviors, that we simply proceed forward and not necessarily potentially embarrass that individual. But if we reach a point where the court proceedings cannot be maintained, I feel quite strongly that the best thing that a judge can do is speak directly and frankly to that individual about what the expectations are in the courtroom about that they will have the have an opportunity to speak directly to the court, whether through counsel or directly, and that the expectation is that they have an absolute right to remain in the courtroom. But if they cannot, they're also welcome to wait outside in the hallway, and that court staff would be happy to go, let them know when their hearing has been called. I think that that also, however, brings up issues related to therapeutic courts as well. And it would be my responsibility as the judge to make sure that if there are symptoms that appear to be relatively obvious mental health symptoms that I share with that individual, that there are options other than. The conventional court, for that matter, is in King County district, for example, a mental health court. And I would like to advise or ask defense counsel to please advise this individual about that court, about that therapeutic court, as well as making sure that I advise in clear, plain language from the bench as well, so that they're familiar with all options that might best serve that particular individual. Thank you. Okay. Councilmember Lambert, we get we finished quickly. Councilman Lambert's up next. Thank you. Thank you. So much. Okay. Good to see you again. My question is, in. Your role as this decision maker. Describe a time when. You knew you were wrong or figured. Out you're wrong. How did you realize that you made the mistake? How did you what made you change. Your mind and how did you correct yourself or. Reverse that mistake? I'm just going to go with the first example that jumps out. Early on in my felony practice, which was early in my career, it was about 18 months after I started my criminal defense practice that I transitioned into felony practice. I had a client that was particularly challenging in terms of communication, didn't have a cell phone, didn't have email, and we really did struggle between hearings to communicate oftentimes in court was our best opportunity. And so thinking that I was being self-motivated and prepared for an upcoming case setting hearing, I walked right on over to the prosecutor's office and and I asked them to make an offer. And I prioritized what I thought should be the priority or would be my client's priority, which was no jail time. Thank you. And quite proudly and quite naively, that afternoon at the case setting hearing, I announced to my client, Guess what? I got you a great offer to reduction to a misdemeanor and no jail. So proud. And my client said, Oh, that sounds good. There's no probation, right? I said, Oh, no, it comes with two years of probation. And my client was very upset and said I'd do a year in jail before I do a day of probation voluntarily. And at that point, I realized, oops, this is very much the wrong decision. And as the decision maker, it had been mine and my fault. And we ended up continuing the hearing over our prosecutors. Objection. Who had said, no, no. Ms.. And Mr. was in my office this morning and negotiated. They have an offer, they should be ready. And I had to accept the responsibility for my mistake because it was not anybody else's issue but mine. And so I stood before the court and explained that I had made the mistake and I was appropriately going to advise my client what his options were in terms of even the choice to retain me or continue to have me as counsel or seek a new attorney. And then I got also the distinct pleasure of going back to the prosecutor's office and and renegotiating, which was not personally enjoyable but needed to be done for my client. That informed me that experience, informed my practice for the seven and a half, eight years that have come after in terms of a client centered approach to the work that I do, in terms of acknowledging that every individual that I work with is an individual who has different needs, who has different interests, and who has different priorities from one another and from what I might anticipate, and that I need to meet them where they are and advocate for them there. I will bring that lesson with me to the bench in District Court acknowledging that what might be a positive proceeding for somebody where they feel that they have achieved justice or achieved a resolution is is good for them, might be different for the next person. Thank you. Thank you. Fourth question will be asked by Councilmember Gossett. Thank you, Madam Chair. I was listening with interest to your response to the first question that we presented to you, and you started off by talking about the issue of racial disproportionality in our criminal justice system and how you would deal with it. This is kind of an enhancement to that. That's not a specific question that we'd like for you to describe what you have done in your present, personal and professional life to address racial disproportional racial disproportionality. Particularly in our court system where it's been very controversial. Thank you for that question. In terms of addressing racial disproportionality, both on a personal and professional level, the fundamental one. One of the fundamental things that I have done is I have refused to believe that I fully understand the issue or that I know everything about the issue. I don't. What I have embraced is a continued desire to learn, to learn about the intersection of racial disproportionality and our court system, and about communities different from my own as well, both in terms of the richness of those communities and the obstacles that those communities and challenges that they face community wide and as individuals within that community. And so within my personal life, I have put myself in a position to have those conversations that can sometimes be very difficult or awkward about issues such as has privilege about overt aggressions, but also microaggressions. I've put myself in a pause and the categories micro assault and so on. I've made sure that I am not a silent observer when I see these issues before me, that when I see somebody's behavior behaving in a way that I think displays a bias or a micro-aggression of some sort, that I speak up and call them out on that not in an attacking manner, but I try to address the issue in a way that invites a conversation not only for the other, but so that I may learn and grow as well in a professional context. I have also addressed this issue by calling it out and putting a name on it. I think that a fallacy over the course of certainly my upbringing in my career that I've seen repeatedly is individuals believing that we are somehow in a post racism society, which is obviously not true, or that just because I don't believe that I am a racist, that everything is okay and that I am not behaving in a in a racist manner. And so we end up stifling or silencing ourselves and the discussion about the effect of race, class, cultural issues in our professional discourse. I have just recently stood before a court and shared the experience of my client, who is a young African-American man who was raised in the foster care system, who had his children at a very young age and has had and his life experience has been very different than that of the attorney general, the social worker from the department on the case and the judge that I am presenting to. And I believe that his experience and his background has borne on his behaviors that are now being questioned in the court by the Department of Social and Health Services. I'm in a dependency practice right now and really use the opportunity to say to the court, just because it is not similar to our experience, to the Department's experience , to the attorney general's experience, does not mean that my client's behavior was was wrong or should be judged and tried to use that as an opportunity to educate. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Fifth and final question will be asked by Councilmember Dombroski. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Bobby, for being here again. We some of us are there to interview you before, so your answers today are helpful beyond those. I have the fifth general question, and that is related to kind of court operations and budget issues. And it is this the county's general fund, which supports district court, has an ongoing structural crisis, that the court is regularly having to find ways to do more with less. What ideas do you have for how the court might operate more efficiently? I love that question. Thank you, because I have a very specific thought on the topic. Obviously, there are financial constraints in every area and certainly the court struggles with that issue. I think that one very concrete challenge that the court has has to do with appearance of specifically criminal defendants for hearings that we operate in a very , in my mind, outdated system where individuals come to court, for example, for an arraignment, a pretrial hearing or whatever type of hearing or readiness. And when their next hearing is scheduled, they're given a small, usually pink, sometimes white sheet of carbon paper that has their next hearing date on it. It's been my experience that my clients, my hundreds of clients over the course of my career in district court have so many obstacles that they face, whether it's homelessness, other poverty related issues. Housing instability. And. So many possible obstacles that keeping track of that little tiny piece of paper or transferring that date to their phone to their calendar is just not necessarily a reasonable expectation. And they miss hearings. And then we have the inefficiency and additional costs related to that inefficiency of issuing warrants, of booking on warrants, of return, on warrant hearings , on incarceration costs related to needlessly missed hearings, whereas. A modest capital investment in an automated system or utilization of court staff. If we didn't have an automated system to provide a courtesy call or a courtesy text message for folks, Hey, you have a hearing in 48 hours. The same thing that, for example, my doctor's office is able to do when I have an appointment. I think would dramatically increase the appearances of of litigants in specifically criminal but other proceedings as well if we utilize such a lesser system. And although it would be a modest cost up front would pay off, I would expect in dividends for the system as it was imposed because we would have more people appearing, fewer warrants, fewer return on warrant hearings with less need for public defenders, prosecutors, judges, jail guards, all of the staff and cost that comes with those hearings going in. I've seen in other jurisdictions where such a system has been used and that there has long term been a cost savings as well as a human savings in terms of people staying employed, maintaining their housing because they're not needlessly incarcerated. Thank you. Are there any follow up questions, councilmembers, before we move into the closing statement? All right. If you would, Ms.. Edmonson, please give us your closing statement. As I said, up to 2 minutes. But since we've gone a little long, maybe you could make it brief. I will do my best. Thank you. So much. Thank you all so much for the opportunity to speak and meet with you today. I believe that I am the right candidate for appointment to the King County District Court Southeast Division. My diversity of experience has given me both the perspective. And the experiential understanding to assess the complex, both social and legal issues that confront our district court on a day to day basis. My ten years experience as a public defender has given me the experience and skills to manage a high volume calendar. Having managed a high volume caseload, being familiar with how to read a docket quickly to identify legal issues, having experience clearly, quickly, concisely, in plain English, articulating those issues to the folks who are about to go before the court so that they may know what to expect. And being familiar with the electronic record systems that are used in the court, whether E, C, SDR, Jabs or J, I switch it on it to my out. I possess the courage, the intellectual integrity and fortitude and commitment to justice that is necessary and has prepared me to continue to confront the complex issues of racial disproportionality that are facing the Court today. Given all of this experience and these attributes, again, I believe that I am the right candidate for appointment to the King County District Court. And I thank you very much for your time today. Thank you so much. Really appreciate your time, your diligence. This is a very detailed process and you've provided us a lot to think about and we're ready for the next candidate at this point. Please. That will be Jason Petrus. Generally.

Recommendation to receive and file a status update on the implementation of the City's Language Access Policy, that includes multi-lingual signage in the new Civic Center, translation of Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Documents, a schedule for multi-lingual budget community meetings, the utilization of translation services at City departments, meetings and events, and the proposed FTE coordinator position.

LongBeachCC_01222019_19-0059

Okay, fine. Can we move? We're going to move. Item number 23, 22. It's a pleasure that I don't know a 22. Item 22 is a communication from Council member Aranda Councilwoman Gonzalez, Councilmember peers, council membership and a recommendation to receive and file a status update on the implementation of the city's language access policy. Thank you. Oh, yes. Thank you, vice Mayor, for accommodating this. We have a lot of people in the audience who I know wanted to speak on this and have children. So thank you for accommodating this request. Before we continue, can we have our staff report, please? Can you. Yes. Councilmember Kelly. Collopy and Katie are here to answer any questions we have regarding this and give a brief update. On the monorail. I didn't do that. I took the. Traffic. You know. Good evening, Honorable Vice Mayor and council member. It's my pleasure to share a language access policy update with you and the members of our community this evening. I'm turn you over to Katie Borders to share our progress to date and then I'll share a little bit more about moving forward. Okay. Thank you, Kelly. So the city of Long Beach is home to approximately half a million people and 46.6 of residents over the age of five speak a language other than English at home. Nearly 178,000 residents speak either English, Spanish or I'm sorry, Spanish, Khmer, Tagalog. Language access services allow these community members to receive essential city services, engage directly in the decision making process, and, most importantly, have their voices heard. The Language Access Policy establishes standards and procedures for providing language access in city services programs and resources in the top three languages spoken in Long Beach. The policy also provides for over the phone interpretation recorded outgoing messages for city phone lines, interpretation at public meetings and translation of city documents. It also includes coordination of a bilingual staff directory and training for bilingual staff so that they can provide interpretation and translation services as needed. The Language Access Coordinator is working to implement the policy consistently across all departments. To do this, she developed a language access policy or lap kit to train staff and promote language services and provides a 30 minute lap training that staff to staff that provides an overview of the policy services and how to use them. In fiscal year 2018, the lap coordinator conducted 13 staff trainings, directly reaching 385 employees. We invite any city staff to request lap trainings from us to ensure that all residents who speak a language other than English can easily access city services. She also maintains a bilingual staff directory of 722 city staff who receive bilingual skill pay when they provide translation or interpretation. The city staff who receive bilingual skill pay are required to review two training videos that address appropriate techniques and ethics, ethics for interpretation and translation, as well as the use of children as interpreters. The bilingual staff directory is updated every six months and is available on the city's intranet. In cases where interpretation is needed and a bilingual staff member is not immediately available, we also provide over the phone interpretation. Our vendor, the language line, provides 24/7 access to over 8000 professionally trained interpreters who speak more than 240 languages. In fiscal year 2018, language line provided the city with interpretation for 191 calls in nine different languages. When someone calls the city department, they can access assistance in their preferred language using our translated outgoing phone messages. Currently, there are 74 city phone lines that have menus translated in Spanish and Tagalog. The lab coordinator coordinates onsite interpretation for public meetings as well. In fiscal year 2018, Language Access provided the service at 98 public meetings for 19 different departments and city council offices. This reflects a 44% increase compared to fiscal year 2017. In addition to onsite interpretation, we also help ensure that city documents are translated in Spanish common Tagalog in fiscal year 18. The lap coordinator coordinated the translation of 190 documents for 17 city departments and council offices. This number remained consistent compared to last year. During the FOIA 19 budget process, we were directed to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the Language Access Program. The evaluation has been completed and the report is being drafted. It will be available in the next couple of months. The evaluation included a review of the implementation of the language access policies in other jurisdictions around the country, a project in partnership, which was a partner and project with the California State University Long Beach Linguistics Department, looked at 11 different city facilities. We held resident focus groups in Spanish in May, held key informant interviews with interpreters who frequently provide services and interpretation services for our program, and a satisfaction survey of city staff who have used the Language Access Program in the last year. The preliminary findings include that there's just an overall lack of awareness still or utilization of our services in the community. There's a lack of awareness and utilization of the language line. We did learn that 87% of those that have used the document translation are satisfied and 78% are satisfied with the turnaround time for those documents. This is closely related to communication regarding expected turnaround times with regard to interpretation. 100% of respondents were satisfied with the services are provided and 92% were satisfied with the interpreters, punctuality and professionalism. Because we often work with the same interpreters at the many community meetings where interpretation is provided. We conducted key informative interviews with them to better understand their observations and experiences in the community. We learned more about the importance of community interpreting as a specific skill that requires knowledge of context, background and community dynamics. One interpreter we spoke with spent time before every meeting, reviewing documents and key terms so that she prepared for the event. Often, the interpreters are asked to assist residents in understanding forms or navigating a challenge which they take away, which can take away from their ability to be interpreting for the broader context. Yet overall, the interpreters received positive feedback from the residents who are very grateful that they're there. The results of the comprehensive evaluation showed us that despite the work that we've invested and the great progress we've made so far, we know we can do better. We've already begun a plan for developing the following working with the Council District and the Budget Office to provide interpretation at the community budget meetings. Translating the Community Budget Book and partnering with the Budget Office to provide a multilingual community budget meeting. Partnering with the Department of Disaster Preparedness and Emergency Communications as part of their efforts to develop a disaster response plan for individual disabilities and functional needs. Offering quarterly trainings as well as flexible formats to help departments identify strategies to overcome specific language access challenges. Working more closely with community partners to increase awareness of our language access program among our residents. Increase in the pool of vendors to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of document, translation and interpretation. Currently we have the Language Access Program, has a coordinator who operates 28, who works for 27 hours a week, full time, that is structurally funded in $160,000 and one time funding, which is an increase from $80,000 last year. And so those services, many of these services are able to be provided through that increase. However, with the increase in the focus on training, access, outreach, and those will be coming to you in the future to increase the the position from part time to full time to be able to continue this move. And with that, I'm going to turn it over to Craig Beck to talk about signage and facilities. Yeah. Good evening, counsel. You may recall in back in November of 2018, there was information provided this council regarding the new Civic Center project. And the project includes three primary buildings, the Port Administration Building, our new City Hall, and also the downtown library. We are employing new language access policies in all these buildings, including the translation of signage in the common areas. So in the lobby of the new City Hall and Port Building and library, as someone comes in, there is going to be a reception area that will be translated into four languages and also opportunity for translation services at all of the public counters. Lap cards will be available along with access to translation. I think what one of the things that we're really looking forward to is investment in new technology. So in the new council chambers, we will have a new translation services device that will allow us to have multiple channels on one set of headphones . So depending on what language you're seeking or if maybe you're hearing impaired, you'll have you'll be able to use the same device. And those translation services can happen in a different room. So they don't have to necessarily be in the auditorium themselves. We find that that that will help with the translation services. And we also looked into utilizing hearing induction loops. So we know a lot of people that are hearing impaired will wear hearing aids. And the induction loops that we're putting into our large assembly rooms, including the new chambers, will allow people to tune in and hear what's being either translated or just the presentation itself through these induction loops. So the new technology is a step forward. We believe that that the the flow and and access in the new city hall is going to be very intuitive and help people achieve services. So that concludes my report. I'm available to answer questions. Thank you. Continuing. Thank you. And I wanted to also thank my colleagues and results for the First District, Ginny Pearson second and Dallas, who not the fourth. And joining me in this discussion and in this overview, what's taking place with the language arts program at this point? I think it would be appropriate if my colleagues did not defer that. We go to the public comment and I will take it back here. Hi. Hi. So okay with you? Good. Okay. Please. If anyone like to speak honestly, won't you please come forward? Salute you. Okay. Good evening, counsel. My name is Mikhail for two, and I'm actually a student from. Casa in Long Beach. And I was I was assigned to investigate the. Accessibility of. LEP resources in other translation services here actually. In City Hall. And I was surprised to find. I was actually surprised to not see lack of translated signs for directory to location within the building, little to no translated documents to which language other than English speakers can access and most important, LPC resources. Not many citizens were aware of the sleep resources, which is very concerning. No, I know there isn't. Like there isn't much and not a lot of funds to expand on these services remedies. But that is why I'm here before you. So I am, as I am a student who grew up in the immigrant community, and I'm here to urge the city to invest more in the space, mainly immigrant communities that participate in their society. Some of the ways in which I think it's been mentioned already, but I would like to reinforce again. The ways how the. City can help is by increasing the distribution of vital documents, as this will make services and information much more easier to navigate. And access, in addition, needs to be implemented consistently across all city departments so our communities won't be discouraged with about accessing certain departments due to language barriers. And lastly, there needs to be more active outreach to residents who may not know about yep. Through there, through collaborations with community based organizations. With these recommendations, our communities would be would be able to navigate our city and. Participate without having worry about without. Any worry about language barriers. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Hello. My name is Gabby Hernandez and I'm a resident of the First District. I'm also the program manager for the Long Beach Immigrant Rights Coalition, and we're a member of the Language Access Coalition. And I think all of you should have the fact that the coalition put together and I'm here to tell you a little bit about what we heard from community members in collaboration with the Office of Equity. We hosted a focus group with Spanish speaking community members where they share with us their experiences when accessing city services. Due to my limited time here, I will only share the highlights of this focus group. But to start with, on November 14, 2017, the City Council passed the motion asking for multilingual signage at the New City Civic Center and other new city buildings. Markups of the new Civic Center have incorrect translations, and there has been no report back. To the council. About the multilingual signage at other city buildings. Second, the quality of interpretation in translation by the city vendor is poor. Community members who have who we've spoken to have told us that translation is not properly done. They have had a hard time understanding the translated documents. In particular, one community member told us that the translation appears to be very direct. Literally like a literal translation of the English signs that don't make any sense in Spanish. Thirdly, and one of the most critical things that we heard in the focus group is that most community members were not even aware of this policy. It is. It wasn't until we told them about whether they knew that it existed. Many of them shared with us that they had no idea that there's a provided translation, a city council meetings, and they had no idea that you had to request it within 24 hours in advance. Lastly, lack of consistent implementation of the language access policy throughout the city departments is a huge problem for those community members who were aware of this policy and have tried to access city services in different city departments. They were shocked because some of the city staff were not even aware of the policy themselves. Additionally, language the language line has never been offered to them. So because of the stories, we're here to ask you to correct this problems in the following four ways. One, correct the Civic Center signage, translations and include multilingual signage at other city buildings. Higher higher. A competent vendor for interpretation and translation services. Third Award Stipends to community based organizations to conduct resident outreach. And lastly, direct each department to designated language liaison to work with the Office of Equity to implement this policy. We hope that you consider this recommendations and thank you for your time. Thank you. Next speaker. Good evening, council members. My name is Cyndi Dela Cruz Brown. I am a resident of the seventh District, a community organizer with Long Beach Forward and a member of the Long Beach Language Access Coalition. I want to review the last few recommendations that our Coalition has for you on how we can improve the language access policy. A policy that we deeply value and know our multilingual members value to. As someone who works with Long Beach residents, particularly parents who speak a language other than English. I hear about their struggles to understand their bills and housing notices. I hear their stories about giving up on navigating our city phone lines after being ping pong from person to person. I hear their frustration and discouragement. Like Gaby mentioned previously, the focus group showed us that even active members in our community who are engaged and trusted leaders have a difficult time navigating city services. One mom. Told us she has to wait for her children, her husband, to get home, to get every to get anything done at city hall due to the language. Barrier. There's just something about the voices that are being left out of the decision making process with city happenings. And we are missing an opportunity to address issues that most affect each family, neighborhood and district. In our hand out, you will see that our fifth recommendation is the complete translation of phone lines and voicemails. Since this is not complete across city departments. We also want to make sure that the city's single phone line is implemented appropriately. So we do not run into the same errors that recently occurred with the inaccurate translation of the New City Civic Center Science. Our sixth recommendation is to complete translation of vital documents such as city notices. Services, bills and so forth. Our seventh recommendation is to require staff training to be ongoing recommendations four and seven on the sheet you were handed. Both highlight the need for regular staff trainings to meaningfully implement the language access policy and to invest now in this infrastructure. So we give language access and language equity a fair chance. This means staff would receive training on the requirements of policy and of the policy, like how to work with residents with limited English proficiency and so on. And lastly, structurally funding the language access policy, which means having a line item per department for translation and interpretation services , hiring bilingual front desk staff, moving the current part time coordinator to full time to implement the policy. It makes it it makes it difficult for staff to implement the very various components of this policy if they're only part time employees. Implementation does take a long time. We are wasting time, resources and money by not implementing this policy. Well, we would like to continue our dialog and collaborative approach to support to supporting language access for a city that provides prides itself on its diversity. We also want to thank the Office of Equity Staff for their great work. Katie, Francesca, everyone in. The office who's doing the best that they can with what they have. And also the city. Clerk who is able to get translation to them. We hope you. Can keep in mind the foundational priorities presented to you from the Language Access. Coalition. Thank you. Thank you. Next. Good evening, counsel. My name is Juan Rosas. I am a product of Long Beach. I grew. Up in the west side of Long. Beach. I'm a graduate of Garfield Elementary. I went to Hughes, both Cabrillo and Poly High School. And I'm also a graduate of leadership, Long Beach. Youth Leadership. Long Beach, class of 2011. And I'm currently a graduate student at Cal State Long Beach, pursuing a degree in linguistic. Anthropology. As a student advocated for a. Collaboration between the Linguistics Department and the Office of Equity. And the fruit of. This collaboration. Was a student project examining the implementation of language access across 11 unique city sites. So I was. Responsible for synthesizing those reports. And summarizing some of those patterns. And to put it frankly, what the students saw was disheartening. This included inconsistent knowledge of language access policy within the staff at a single site which often led to contradictory information and advice, you know, from members of the same staff. That lack of knowledge also led to. Makeshift strategies that staff. Relied on, such as using Google Translate or even foreign language dictionaries. Over the. Language line. And multilingual signage was also something that was not that students just didn't report seeing when they did. It was mostly in Spanish and not available in Canadian Tagalog. And so the. Long of short of it is that I think if Long Beach, Long Beach needs to do. Better, if the city wants to tout its diversity. And wear it as a badge of. Honor, we need to recognize that behind that. Diversity there is a linguistically diverse population. And we need to meet their needs and I don't think we're doing a good. Enough job. Thank you. Thank you. It's speaker. Hi everyone. My name is Nathan Lauretta and I live in the second district of Long Beach. I believe in improving the quality of interpretation and translation will benefit me by ensuring that my family member's loved ones and community members will be able to navigate the Civic Center or any new buildings in Long Beach. In addition, conducting outreach to community members who have a limited English proficiency is vital because most residents don't know about the city's language access policy. Both my parents have limited English proficiency, and they are unaware of this policy, which is why there should be stipends to community based organizations to conduct resident outreach. We also need to complete vital document documentation translation for all departments and train staff on a regular basis because minors should not be interpreters. Growing up, I often found myself having to translate for my parents, although I had no idea what they were referring to. That is why I'm here to ask the City Council to implement the multilingual signage at the new Civic Center and in any other new city buildings. Thank you. And can to a. Good evening, council members. My name is Abbey over here. I am also a Long Beach resident, as well as a court certified interpreter that has. Been serving the community of Long Beach. For the past seven years. I'm very glad to hear of the improvements that have been made to the Language Access Plan. But I do believe that professional. Interpreter and translation. Services need to be available at all times, whether they're requested or not. This will ensure that. Limited English English proficiency. People. Well not have to jump through hoops in order to hear the information in a language they understand. They already have many burdens that they have to deal with. Some of them are parents. Some of them. Are working full time or a combination of all of these things. Meetings need to be readily accessible in order to increase civic. Engagement and. Vital information and updates need to be disseminated. To communities. That are already underserved and need to be informed. Of the things that are going on in the city. I urge councilmembers and the city. To make a greater commitment to the language access plan so and to allocate more money for this plan. I am glad to hear that the new civic center will be having interpreting booths. I think that will be a great increase, but I do urge you for a greater commitment. Thank you. Very much. Next speaker. Good evening, the. Honorable vice mayor and city council member. I'm also a product of Long Beach. I grew up in the 66 District and also our probably Jackrabbit Alumni O Cobb Beach. So again, my name is Ledeen, a program coordinator for M three educated men with meaningful messages at Saint Mary's Medical Center and also a a member of the Alliance Axis coalition working with youth. One of the. Challenges with youth or minors always countering, interpreting for their parents, knowing that they're not fluent and combined, put them in a tough situation for the youth I work with. I know I know several youth who who have been pulled out from school so they can interpret it for their parents at either getting housing assistance or paying bills . Sometimes there's no interpretation to provide at the moment. So one of our recommendation is it requires staff training to be ongoing. Staff need training and the requirements of the language access policy to either how to keep LP resident and how to keep with interpreters. There's a lot of work needs to be done and we're hoping to so. We can work together and to achieve the same goal. Our final act is structurally funding a language access policy to be able to have each department setting aside money for interpretation, interpretation and translation, and also moving in the current position part time coordinator to a full time position as well. Lastly, we want to thank the Office of Equity for their hard work and dedication. Thank you and. Thank you our contract. Next speaker, please. Okay. Good evening, City Hall Council members. My name is Wendy Klein. I'm a linguistic anthropologist. I'm a professor of linguistics and anthropology at Cal State Long Beach. And you heard from one of my students, Miguel, as well as Juan. About the. Project that one of my courses conducted. Last. Semester. I had 35 students in a course called Language and. Social Justice. And in small teams. I sent them out to investigate how the language access policies were operating around the city. And yes, it was. Let me. Say the. Results were mixed. In the places where there was some training. There was an awareness of what some residents would need in order to. Understand vital information. But in many of the locations, there wasn't any knowledge at all about. The language access policies. So I'm here to. Urge you to continue your support. Of language access policies, specifically in terms of the resources making. Resources available to. The Office of Equity so that there is full time. Staff available. I think that part of. What is critical to the. Success of language access programs as effective training of city personnel, strong translation and interpreter services, multilingual signage, voicemail messages and web page information research shows that the safety and well-being of urban communities depends in part on successful and. Far reaching language access programs and outreach to community. Members. So thank you for your. Time and please. Take all these recommendations seriously. Thank you very much. Trust me. Again. I want to thank you all for being out here tonight to share your thoughts and your views on what would be a very robust and successful language access program. I'm sure that our staff has listened and heard you. I certainly have. In regards to your feelings and your thoughts on the Language Access program, we have an opportunity here. Basically, we're going to be moving into a new city hall. We're looking at the implementation of the language access program across the city. So we have an opportunity to implement a lot of the ideas that are coming out here today. As you heard from our our director of Health and Human Services, Kate Colby, that report will be coming before the city council within the next few months. That will be much more comprehensive. I put this an agenda here tonight so that we will get an update as to what is taking place and what are some of the continuing challenges that we might have in the very near future. Before we move into to City Hall and of course, how we can also excuse me, expand the program as a whole. I think that one of the most important aspects of this whole program is, of course, having a full time employee for an FTE to handle the Language X program, which would take care of some of the other aspects that were raised here tonight, such as training or having liaisons in each department. I think having a full time employee to manage a language access program would be a very big step in doing that. And one of the things that I've shared with my colleagues, as well as with the city staff and the city manager , is that we need to look at how we can fund this institutionally, meaning that it's it's it's a part of doing business with the city in regards of having a full time employee and having language access as a ongoing program that is fully funded year in, year out, without having to look at one time funding or one time sources or grants to keep this going. So I think it's an important aspect of our doing business in Long Beach. I heard some positive comments out there in terms of, yes, we are a diverse city. We also are diverse not only in our cultures, but diverse and linguistically in terms of all the languages that that are here in Long Week and Long Beach, they might not be as. Large communities as they might be like in Los Angeles or other large cities. But nonetheless, we need to be prepared and we need to have and provide access to anyone who needs it and requires it. So I'm really pleased and happy of what's going to come in the future with our new civic center, our new state of the art library, our new civic center as a whole. With with the poor alone book as well. And the international trade that they're going to be in charge of here in the future here in the downtown. So with that, I want to thank Stafford for the update that we have here today. But again, like I say, we have an opportunity here to really expand this program, to make it a much more functional aspect of what we do in the city, making it part of our of our business in terms of the cost of doing business in Long Beach. And that's to make sure that all our residents have access to information. And there's nothing much more important than that is information and communication and making sure that everybody knows what's available to them and having the the opportunity to not only get that service, but to have access in how and how to get additional services as well. So with that, I'll pass it on to my to my colleagues. I know there's some of you lined up that would like to speak on this. And again, I want to thank my colleagues for supporting this this item. Thank you. Councilman Pearce. Thank you. Yes. I want to thank Councilmember Urunga for bringing this forward and for the community members to put together your fact sheet, your time, your efforts and really have been driving this. I know we talk about language access, every budget and every budget. I say how important I believe that it is for a city of half a million people to really have a robust language access plan. And I think that we've you know, when we started, because I was in the community never thinking about running for office when we started this campaign many years ago. And so just echoing where we are with this, with the request, I think there are four areas. One is the quality of interpretation. Two is structurally funding it. And really, that's the city manager's office fully adopting the language access plan in every single department, in every single way that we can. The outreach and the Civic Center. So I know that from talking to staff, we're on the same page with understanding that the translation that's been provided is not accurate, but staff in public works is working on that. So I'm grateful to hear that some check is done on our list on that, on the right steps for outreach . I wanted to ask, I know when we've done things, changes to our water bills or when election time comes and we have to do an informational piece, we've included something in our utility bill. What's that cost? And and wouldn't that be a great way to make sure that every resident knows for those utility bills? Because I believe they're translated or you can request for your utility bill in a different language. Is that true? That's my question, first of all. The information is translated, but I do not know what the cost is to do that. Okay. So if the information is translated, could we then earmark or, you know, run a query and say, okay, these are the 700 people that request their water bill in Tagalog. Therefore, let's send them a mail piece that tells them, here's the process for language access at the city or a little blurb in the corner of it just seems like that we already have a way to know that people need something in a different language, that if we use that as outreach. I can add a little bit on that. So we have the ability through our utility billing to do like a 1 to 2 line as part of the actual bill that costs almost nothing. And we can put a little bit of information in that bill itself. When you're talking about putting in inserts, it depends on whether or not it requires more postage or if it's just the copying. The copying can be between seven or $10,000 to be able to put a message out to everybody. But we could work on a one line or something like that that says, you know, need translation and then whatever, you know, website landing or something that we could do. I think that'd be a great way to put that out there. It's it's a relatively inexpensive way to to communicate something like that. Yes. Okay. Thank you for that. Getting to the quality of interpretation. I know that it's you know, in the community request, there's several different areas of quality, whether we're talking about the phone service or departments or we're talking about public works or how that is relayed. I know that there are court certified translators, and I'm just curious if that is included in our RFP whenever we work with translators. I believe the skill set that we include and in our typical vendors or that we receive from our vendors is more around community. Interpreting is a skill set rather than court interpreting. They're slightly different skill sets that require more knowledge about community. Some background research prior to the event. So I don't know that it's necessarily a part of our RF peer review process at this point to have court certified interpreters. And I know that there's. And that wasn't something that the community members asked for. But I know that that might help us get to a another layer when we're talking about technical issues. So I don't know if there's a grading scale in our RFP process or just some information that we could include. Are you also court certified so that we can make that assessment as needed? Our staff can make that assessment as needed. Might help across the board with our translation. Yeah. We'll be looking at our new on call request for qualifications and add the quality and experience and certifications of the vendors who applied to that on call list . Great. Thank you for that. And now, I mean, I think the biggest piece is the structural funding. I know after the last budget for council offices up here said we'll take it out of our divide by nine money if we need to, which I don't think is necessarily fair, as the entire city is a diverse city and there are people in every single district but that it shouldn't come out of our divide by nine money. But rather, again, I'm going to echo that statement around if it's like it services, you know, that we the department can use it or not use it as needed, but that if we have a liaison or there's somebody that is in that department that can do the translation, but it really has to be across the board so that we can really be a city that feels like we are communicating to every single one of our constituents, whether it's a language that few people speak or many. And so I would wanted to clarify Miss Colby's statement. You guys are returning in 30 days with a report on the structurally funded position. Did I hear that correctly from you? Well, the the report itself from the evaluation is coming. You know, we'll have that prepared in the next month or two to be able to come back. What we are finding is that the level of based on the based on the findings and the recommendations and the requests that we're hearing is that we have funding for the actual services where we don't have is. So, you know, if we're to do more training to build capacity in our communities, we need to have the capacity of an individual to go out and do the. Full time position. And those kind of things. So what so that that is what we're seeing moving forward. So the council did provide us with the extra 80,000 this year that does allow us to provide additional materials more, more translate those kinds of things. But to really to expand those funds, we can't fully utilize those funds unless we actually have the ability of of staffing to be able to to be able to provide those services. So I guess what I'm getting to is that item that's in front of us today is a report, right, as an update on implementation. I want to be able to take the vote that says we have a full time language access person, but you guys are going to bring us a report about how our services are being used. And then after that would be the time for us to say, okay, it looks like we need that person and to be able to him to do the work that we said we wanted to do. Yes. Okay. So I shouldn't get crazy and put an agenda item on for next Tuesday. Okay. So make sure. You have a report back soon. Okay. And I think, again, just to echo one more time, you know, being able to have every single department know that this is something that's a resource. And if the funding could come along those same ways, I think it would be really helpful. And I know that training and that making sure that staff and directors know. And so I would just ask that the city manager included in there, you know, weekly emails that we get at the end of the week that all the department heads understand the process and that you guys talk about it in your team meetings. So it's a great report. Thank you guys for all your hard work. I know that this has been many years coming and I feel like we're getting a step closer and we still have a little bit more work to do, but we're getting there. So thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzalez. Yes. Thank you as well for the report and thank you to the coalition. I know you've been are an informal, informal committee on this and we really appreciate the advice and the all of the points on here because we think they're very valuable. And I would like us, you know, when we bring the report back to ensure and I know a lot of this will be addressed, but to ensure that point by point, we are specifically including an answer to each of the questions as to why or may not why or why not, that we may or may not be able to. I can't speak tonight. I'm very tired. Sorry. Are you saying. So are you speaking specifically about the delay? Yes, the handout. So if we can just address each line by line, I know we will do that. But just specifically, so we're on the same page here. And I really see the language axis. I think we've talked about it enough, but certainly as a public safety issue, I know we talk about it in the First District quite a bit on even things like in terms of outreach, like Long Beach Transit. And I know that's a completely different body, but the see something, say something, you hear the police chief say it on over the intercom and just to be able to work with that jurisdiction or that agency as well, to be able to say , can we do it in Spanish, I think is another opportunity with various other agencies. I know we're working already and the Coalition does include faith based organizations, but I think that will also help with a lot of the outreach. We have a committee, iPad, net TV that offers information in Spanish and hopefully if we have something in Tagalog, we are doing the outreach to provide additional. Outlets for this plan, because I would hope that when it comes back that we can talk about the language access policy in a way that's branded. So people know exactly what we're talking about. So just some thoughts there. And then in terms of timing, I know, Kelly, you had mentioned timing about one or two months that will take us, would you say maybe end of March, just so we're clear on that time frame? Yes. Okay, great. And then I would just say, if and I know you've done this before for any reason, it lasts a little bit longer. I'm sure you'll receive a two from four. That will state why it's taking a little longer. Okay. Thank you. I think everything else was addressed. But I just want to thank again the coalition and everyone that's here. And thank you as well, both Katie and Kelly and all of you for for doing the work. And we appreciate you listening to the community. Thank you. Constance Juvenile. Thank you. I'd like to thank Councilmember Ranga for bringing the item forward and also for a great synopsis in your soliloquy there. You covered everything. But nonetheless, I'll dig deeper on this one. And also thanks to my council colleagues for signing on. Thanks to the Coalition for being here tonight and for meeting with me. I really appreciate that. And to all the speakers tonight, thank you. My question is for Director Collopy and I know this is just an update, an overview, but I'd like to discuss a little bit the FTE and how we get this position full time. You and I had a discussion last week and you explain to me how this process could be streamlined or the funding mechanism is sort of already in place. So I don't want to put words in your mouth. Could you explain what we discussed last week? So the current position is funded structurally at 27 hours per week. In addition to that, we've had an ongoing $80,000 per year. It's one year, it's one time funding, but it's been coming each year, and that has been for services. Specifically where there was an increase, the the council generously approved an additional $80,000 for this year for services within that $80,000, there is funding that could cover the full time, except that the position is currently not a full time position. But that is that is one time funding and is not structural funding. So the shift would be utilizing would be designating a portion of that funding as structural funding and then the remainder as the as one time fund. Okay. Thank you. I think that helps explain how this is going to be a unique situation that we could take advantage of. And I'll just wrap up by saying that my big desire is we talk about the subtleties of the language. The most used expression from my office is go forth, so make sure we get an accurate translation on that income. Mike, thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much, Sunil. Councilman Richardson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And my my remarks will be brief. So I want to just acknowledge the change that I see here when this conversation started and it was before many of us joined this council and, you know, it was a big it was a lot of pressure, a big push to really create established language access policy . And then the community's really been relentless and smart and strategic about making sure is at the forefront of the council's agenda, to make sure that we continue to implement this policy. And then today I acknowledge the differences. Um, you know, the Office of Equity Equity, our health department, our language access coordinator, they're on, you know, they're not just reflecting with the community saying they're leading on a lot of this. So we see it's just a different dynamic. It's an inside, outside approach. And I'd love to see that be that mean. That's an indication that we're beginning to institutionalize this policy a bit more. And that's that should be recognized. And I think as we move into the new civic center, I really think it's important that this policy is on the ground, you know, is there as we move in and it's important and will continue to be carried out as we move forward. Councilman, you Ranga, thank you for continue to champion these issues. I'm obviously in support of of your motion here. And we'll continue to, you know, advocate for further adoption and implementation here. So good work, Councilman Ranga, and good work, Health Department team. And thank you to the community for your advocacy. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Richardson. I also myself, I think way back when I first came in office, we're talking about language access. And it's come a long ways. But the biggest point I really would like to look forward to is making sure it doesn't have to be a year by year, you know, elimination, where we have to worry about finding money to push this forward. That should be a no brainer. And so we'll be pushing real hard, you know, for this coming year to make sure that that money will be there. We don't have to go year by year to try to find it. So I want to thank you guys for being here and and thank you for bringing this forward. And I know we do a great job with this. Thank you guys for coming down and giving your support. Thank you again. Now we can move with the vote on this. No more questions. We can vote. Please cast your vote. Motion carries.

Recommendation to declare ordinance relating to adopting an amendment to Ordinance No. C-6496, adopted July 5, 1988, and amended on January 24, 1989, July 11, 1989, December 5, 1989, March 20, 1990, July 3, 1990, September 18, 1990, July 2, 1991, July 7, 1992, January 26, 1993, August 24, 1993, June 28, 1994, July 18, 1995, November 28, 1995, October 1, 1996, March 25, 1997, October 7, 1997, October 27, 1998, April 20, 1999, October 19, 1999, October 17, 2000, October 30, 2001, March 19, 2002, November 26, 2002, January 6, 2004, February 8, 2005, November 1, 2005, December 5, 2006, March 20, 2007, May 22, 2007, December 18, 2007, July 15, 2008, September 21, 2010, September 13, 2011, September 11, 2012, October 3, 2013, and September 9, 2014, September 22, 2015, September 20, 2016, September 12, 2017, September 11, 2018, and September 3, 2019, relating to departmental organization of the City of Long Beach, read and adopted as read.

LongBeachCC_09152020_20-0865

Let me go ahead and let me go ahead and go to Adam's 2620 728. Item 26 Report from Financial Management Recommendation to Declare Ordinance relating to Departmental Organization of the City of Long Beach Red and Adopted as Red. Okay. I have a motion and a second, please. Medium version in a second on these budget items please Councilmember Austin and second by Councilmember Pearce. I don't think have to have any public comment on 26. Yes. Our first speaker is Dave Shukla. Hello. Dave Chappelle. Just very briefly, I'm looking forward to seeing how this point in the budget process evolves next year and every two year increments through 2030. And how we manage as a city, what happens after the Olympics and really looking at the Century Foundation as kind of a guide to doing it right the first time yet . Thank you very much. Thank you. Our next speaker is carelessly you. Look. Hi, this is Corliss Lee. And looking at the budget where we're planning on furloughs, layoffs and salary cuts for frontline city employees to balance the budget. I'm having a hard time reconciling some of the other moves that are made. We are in an era of tightening our belts. Budget shortfalls are expected. What was the criteria by which budgeting decisions were made? I have to question that $85 million swimming pool is essential. Santa monica built a pool on the beach for 30 million. Who benefits from this? The trees. Along Willow and Eldorado Park. Are already turning orange. Is that a reduction in watering? Are we giving up watering the. Parks. While at the same time taking a $1.5 million soccer field that was planned surreptitiously became a $2.3 million soccer field. Are we planning on replacing it with a new potable watering system? What are the benefits? Who benefits? Is it. Necessary? Then I look at raises. Raises for the city auditor who's already in the 200 K Club. Does that make sense when you're laying people off? Raise this for city council. And then hiding that fact from the public. This is the year you should have frozen salary. I really can't understand your budgeting process. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes public comment for this item. Roll call vote, please. District one, i. District two. District three, i. District four. All right. District five. District five, just. District six. District seven. I. District eight. District eight. I. District nine. Hi. Ocean carries.

AN ORDINANCE related to the City Light Department and the Department of Parks and Recreation; declaring certain real property rights surplus to the needs of the City Light Department; and transferring jurisdiction of the former Lakewood Substation from the City Light Department to the Department of Parks and Recreation for open space, park, and recreation purposes.

SeattleCityCouncil_06192017_CB 118960

The bill passed and then Cheryl sign it please read the report of the park shall senator libraries and Waterfront Committee. The Report of the Park Seattle Center Libraries and Waterfront Committee. Agenda Item five Council Bill 11960. An ordinance related to the City Light Department and the Department of Parks and Recreation declaring certain real property rights surplus to the needs of the city light department and transferring jurisdiction of the former Lakewood substation from the City Light Department to the Department of Parks and Recreation for Open Space, Park and Recreation Purposes. The committee recommends a bill passed. Councilmember Worse. Thank you. This council bill would authorize Seattle City Light to transfer an old substation at Genesee Park to the Department of Parks and Recreation at a cost of 210,000. The committee unanimously recommends passage of the bill. Any further comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill. Sergeant Bagshaw. High Herbold. Johnson. Whereas I President Harrell high six in favor and unopposed. The bill passed and chair of the Senate. Please read agenda item number six. You could read the shorter version.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the State Route 520 Project; authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement with the State of Washington to set forth roles and responsibilities and establish a method for reimbursing costs, where applicable, to operate and maintain the infrastructure constructed as part of the State of Washington’s State Route 520 Project.

SeattleCityCouncil_01072019_CB 119416

Agenda item three accountable 119 416 relating to the state route 520 Project authorizing the mayor to execute an agreement with the State of Washington to set forth roles and responsibilities and establishing a method for reimbursing costs where applicable to operate and maintain the infrastructure constructed as part of the State of Washington State Route 520 Project. The committee recommends the bill pass because remember. Thank you. So the next phase of this project is about to get underway. That phase will include the the approach segment between Man Lake and the floating structure on the direction, the South Side. So the west there will be the eastbound traffic, both lanes will be both east and westbound will be diverted to the new structure that was completed a couple of years ago, the North Approach Bridge. And then also perhaps most importantly for the community immediately around there is the lid and open space that will be part of that project. What this ordinance does is it lays out in significant detail the responsibility of which parts of that project the state in the city are responsible for beyond just the cost. But who will be making decisions, designed decisions and maintenance decisions as we move forward and where those lines will be drawn? It's something that took a lot of work to do this, but by getting this done in advance of this project, getting underway, I believe will help streamline the process and allow for a much better outcome at the end of the project. Thank you very much. Any further questions? Katherine comes from Johnson. Just want to reiterate something for my colleagues that I said in committee, which is this agreement is a great agreement. The continued work around the 520 bridge as it moves to the West, I think is going to be really critical for mobility. And one of the challenges that we have right now is that the current schedule has the second Bascule Bridge in the Montlake area being constructed after the Portage Bay Bridge is complete. And so for all intents and purposes, that would mean we're going to do a bunch of construction and my like we're going to move that construction from my like to the Portage Bay Bridge and then to East Lake and then come back around and do more construction on one leg of the second Bascule Bridge. I've asked why start strongly consider frontloading. That's. I can bascule bridge. So we conclude the construction of my leg and then go further to the west. It's not part of this agreement. It was never intended to be part of this agreement. But I think it's a matter of construction management for the State Department of Transportation and hope that they will continue to make progress in that fashion so that we don't have to take a seven year reprieve from construction and then have construction come back around to their neighborhood again. Very good. Any further comments? If not, please call the role on the passage of the Bill Bagshaw High. Johnson, whereas O'Brian High President Harrell high five in favor nine opposed. The Bill Parsons show sign. Please read the next agenda item.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending Section 5.72.200; by adding Section 21.15.1855; and by repealing City Council Resolution Nos. RES-06-0003 and RES-14-0030, all relating to the Downtown Dining and Entertainment District, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_01062015_15-0004

This hearing involves a recommendation from the city attorney to take three actions. First is to declare an ordinance, read the first time, and lead over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for final reading of amendments to the Municipal Code pertaining to the Downtown Entertainment and Dining District, as well as the definition of a nightclub . And then second, to rescind council resolution number six, 0003 and 14 0030 relating to the former ordinance. And then the third action is to adopt a resolution directing the Director of Development Services to submit the amendment of Title 21 to the California Coastal Commission for finding of conformance with the local coastal plan. Mr. West, your next. Yes. This is I'm going to turn this. Over to Amy Burdick, the development services director. At this time, Mr. Mayor and members of the city council, I'm going to ask Amy Weaver to give this staff report and then Rachel Turner and I can answer any questions you might have. Perfect. Good evening, Honorable Mayor and members of the City Council. Pursuant to the action of the City Council on December 2nd, 2014, amendments to the Long Beach Municipal Code Titles five and 21 have been prepared and are now submitted for your approval. Since one of the amendments is to the zoning code, they are required to be. Considered in a hearing. The proposed amendment to Title five incorporates changes to the downtown dining and entertainment district permitting process recommended by the Downtown Task Force. The regulations will now be included in the municipal code for ease of reference. Formerly, the ordinance set forth the regulations in two Council resolutions. The proposed amendment supersedes and replaces these resolutions, and it is therefore requested that those be. Rescinded in order to avoid confusion. The proposed amendment to Title 21 provides a definition of nightclub, which was previously not included in the zoning code. The Planning Commission considered and approved this amendment at its meeting on November 20th, 2014. In addition. It is requested that the attached resolution be adopted, forwarding the citywide. Amendment to the zoning regulations affecting the coastal zone to the California Coastal Commission as required by state law. If you have any questions. We are available to answer them. Thank you. Thank you. We do have a motion on the floor about Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to thank the staff for the work that they've done on this round of the dining and entertainment district item. I don't see Mr. Harrison here, but Reggie Harrison, who is our deputy city manager, took up this issue. Miss Burdick, remind me, is it eight years? Ten years, when all the while a while. So his twins were much younger. My son was probably two, and I remember walking into the upstairs of one of the establishments where Reggie was holding the meeting. And I bring that up firstly because I want to thank you, Reggie, for the work that you did. You were quite a diplomat in that room. Those were not fun days. Those were days when people were very upset that the city was looking to regulate dining and entertainment districts in any way possible. Because I think the approach and attitude was for as long as it made money, it should be good for the city. We learned a very long time ago that just making money was not good enough for the city. It did not provide a balance that our residents deserved. And so Reggie was the arbiter of that diplomacy. And I want to thank you for that. That has been carried through. I learned a lot from how you manage those rooms and those tough crowds. And I wish there was a better way to approach these sorts of policies, because it seems not possible to make someone better off without making someone worse off. But what we have done in these ten years is we brought the public into the process. We brought the task force members. We created a task force over a year ago. We established a one year moratorium on Type 48 licenses known as the bars, and that was done in August of 2013. Our original intent was simply to update the ordinance in such a way to encourage good actors and discourage bad actors. And I think that has been accomplished. We had people that came together in a room that in other circumstances would not come to the kind of agreement that they did. And they did come to an agreement. They looked at the recommendations that staff and my office came up with. They worked very hard to vet these recommendations. And the city attorneys already mentioned the key recommendation that I think perhaps took the longest time was the definition of nightclub. How do you define a nightclub? You have residents who have their own definition of nightclub. You have businesses that have their own. And certainly the city attorney and and his team had their opinions. But we have come to a consensus and it's very important it truly is important to have created that certainty. We've operated under an ordinance that didn't provide as much certainty as it should have. And I think that's what we do today, is after this decades long process of watching the evolution of the downtown, watching the renaissance of the downtown, what we have created is certainty. And I think the residents for that, if it wasn't for residents that moved into Pine Avenue, created really a neighborhood sense. We wouldn't have this discussion or even initiated the discussion over a decade ago. And so with all that said, I'm very happy for the outcome and the recommendations I know we discussed quite a bit and discussed is putting it lightly. How to define ambient sound. I look at Rachel, she smiles kind of cautiously about that because ambient music is something that a lot of our establishments depend on, but its definition was vague at best and we have provided some certainty there. And so with all that, I'd like to thank the task force members. I know they were here last month, council members. You'll recall this item came before us last month and it was received very positively. You recognize many of the restaurant owners that participated and the restaurant and the residents that participated. And so my my gratitude to these members, the community, as well as city staff, many people applied to be on this task force. But I think at the end of the day, people were very confident at the members who did serve and felt. They were representative, representative of their interests and really the balance between business and residents. We are trying to create a three shift downtown, which is 24 hours. And in doing so, this is a critical piece to our step forward. These recommendations do strike a compromise between the business and residential communities. While most of the dining and entertainment district venues exist in the downtown shared by Councilmember Gonzalez and me, I do know that we have many of these establishments throughout the city. So for all the pain that the downtown has gone through, I'm thankful that the entire city will benefit. And as I mentioned before, this ordinance will make our application much more predictable. Actually, our city attorney mentioned it for new businesses, more flexible for current operators and more responsive to residents looking for enforcement of bad operators. So with that, Mr. Mayor, I know we have three motions I'd like to. Are we taking them up? One at a time. Mr. Mason, we do all three in one motion. Or I can do them separately. It's your pleasure, Mr. City Attorney. I'm sorry. We can take all three up at the same time, but we do need separate boats. Okay. So then would you. Make the most of all three? We could go ahead and read that, actually. Do you want to do that? Yeah. I thought we would do public comment for all three. Absolutely. Okay. Is there any public comment for the hearing? CNN by Samir Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'd like to go ahead and declare the following ordinance, read the first time and lead over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for a final reading amending Long Beach Municipal Code Section 5.72.200 relating to the regulation of the Downtown Entertainment and Dining District that it was a dining and entertainment district , but may be adding Long Beach Municipal Code Section 2115. .1855 relating to the definition of nightclub so moved. Okay there's a second by Councilman Richardson. And I have a procedural question real quick. Mr. Mays, because on the on the voting caste system, members are able to obviously second emotion. And they don't have to verbalize it. So on a second do I if I just say the motion that that covers it. Right. Who seconded it on per who who plugged in first. Or do I need to call on them for them to actually second it. But I think. Since I'm new to the system too, I think if you see it there, I don't think you necessarily have to call them. They've indicated that. They've said. Oh, I'll just announce it was. Yes. Okay. Okay. So I have a motion from Vice Mayor Lowenthal and a second from Councilman Richardson. Well, okay. Well, the first the first motion was actually see of mind has Richardson and then Gonzales did the second one. So in that way, you have Mr. Clarke. Yeah, I have Richardson. Correct. Yeah, it's it's Richardson. That's right. That's what it it's it says. Okay so the motions by Vice Marie Lowenthal. The second is by Councilman Richardson. Okay. Now, I think the confusion again that I am. Confused. Is that on the bottom motion. So at the top it is motion to approve recommendation. It is long thought. Richardson then below and black. It says Lowenthal Gonzalez. That's the next motion. Right? That one have been verbalized. So I may have struck that second motion too quickly. Yes. Okay. So I think we're going to build on Lowenthal Richardson, which was the first motion. So all those in favor for the first item, please cast your votes. Motion carries eight votes. Okay. And then we're going to go on to the second part. Which is the second motion which I'd like to make, is to rescind council, city council resolution numbers, resolution dash zero six, dash 0003 and resolution dash 14, dash 0030 relating to the former ordinance. And the second was by Councilwoman Gonzales. Was correct. Please cast your votes. Motion carries eight votes. Vice Mayor Lowenthal. And the third motion is to adopt the attached resolution directing the Director of Development Services to submit the amendment to Title 21 to the California Coastal Commission for a finding of conformance with the local coastal plan citywide.

A resolution by the Council of the City and County of Denver, sitting ex officio as the Board of Directors of the Denver 14th Street General Improvement District, approving a Work Plan, adopting a Budget, imposing Capital Charges and Maintenance Charges, and making appropriations for the 2018 Fiscal Year. Approves the 2018 Work Plan and Budget for the 14th Street General Improvement District (GID) in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 11-7-17.

DenverCityCouncil_11202017_17-1241

Ten eyes. I'm sorry. This toll for you. Tonight's counsel bill 1240 is passed. Congratulations. All right. We are now a city council convening as the board of directors for the Denver 14 Street General Improvement District. Councilman Gilmore, please put Resolution 1241 on the floor. Thank you, Mr. President, and move that Resolution 1241 be adopted. All right. It has been moved and seconded. Michael Carrigan. You're back up. Good evening once again. Board of Directors Michael Carrigan from Department of Finance, Special District Team. I am here to provide the staff report for the 14th Street General Improvement District and request approval for the 2018 budget. And we're planning approval and work plan. The district is located along 14th Street from Market to Colfax and generally includes all parcels along both sides of 14th Street. It was created by council and approved by the electors in response to the 14th Street Initiative to create Denver's downtown Ambassador Street. The initiative began in 2005 and visualized 14th Street as a promenade and a major gateway to the downtown area. The plan contemplate the plan contemplated streetscape improvements and related public infrastructure. Stakeholders included private property owners, public officials and business organizations participated to establish the conceptual design for 14th Street in 2009. The City Council approved the formation of the 14th Street Guide. The district was established to acquire finance, operate and maintain street improvements. The district's creation ordinance calls for the JD to at least annually pass a work plan and budget. The ordinance in 2009 create the J.D. and its companion ordinance created a district advisory board. The District Advisory Board. Also the District Advisory Board, after a notice and hearing, recommends that board of directors, the proposed work plan and budget, including maintenance charges and capital charges before you tonight. During 2018, the district plans to continue maintaining district amenities including but not eliminated, not limited to tree planter and flower pots, landscape maintenance, signage, repairs, trash removal and holiday light installation. The work plan, budget and charges includes total revenues of $565,759, which is comprised of $255,292 in maintenance charges and banner rental rental revenue plus $310,463 in capital charges for the repayment of debt used to finance the capital enhancements along 14th Street. City staff has reviewed the 2018 budget work plan and recommends it for approval. All right. Thank you, Mr. Carrion. We have one speaker for this public hearing, Beth Maskey. Good evening. I'm Beth Moisi, and I'm with Serve as the executive director for the Denver 14th Street General Improvement District. And I'm here to answer questions. All right. Thank you. You can have a seat. Members of council counts for questions. Councilwoman, can each. Thank you, Mr. President. This has been a dramatic transformation, and this street is just amazing to spend time on it compared to ten years ago. How much or does any of this budget include paying back some of those major infrastructure changes? Or is it more just the smaller things like the tree boxes and things that you mentioned that kind of complemented the actual curb gutter, you know, work that was was done. So the 14th Street Guide actually issued $4 million of bonds, which put the amenities on top of the major street improvements. So the city of Denver had gone in. Was the 2010. The Better Denver Bonds Program 2000 to. 2007 oh four The Better Team. Gets Better Denver Bond Program 2007 Before My Time Yeah so city Denver came in and put down the base enhancements and then the guy put the $4 million of of enhanced enhancements on top of those base improvements. So for the 2018 budget that's captured in the capital charges and it is $310,463 is being used to pay back the debt that they installed those improvements. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Kinch. Any other questions? All right. Public hearing of 1241 is now closed. You know, to Councilwoman Keen interest point, I just wanted to say, I represent this district and this was one of the first project bond projects that I got a chance to work on from the better to offer bond. And it was very innovative because we charged different zones along 14th Street, the premium zone, and I mean really took that idea and went along with it on other areas of my district and it is transformed. It's incredible. And so I think we've done an incredible job there. And I want to thank everybody for being a part of it, because one could each. Yeah. I just wanted to say, I think it's looking great and I would like to just please share kudos with the advisory board folks who are still working on the management. It's you know, it's amazing. Thanks. Great. Okay. This concludes our comments. Madam Secretary. Raquel. Black. Hi. Clarke All right. Flynn, I. Gillmor, I. Herndon Cashman Canete Lopez. Sussman Hi, Mr. President. I police course one witness results. Tonight's ten eyes count about 1241 has passed. Congratulations OC Council is now convene as board of directors for the Reno Denver General Improvement District. Councilman Gilmore, please put Resolution 1242 on the floor.

Recommendation to request the Mayor to convene the Charter Amendment Committee of the City Council within 30 days to discuss placing a City Charter amendment before the voters to amend and restate Article XIA of the City Charter to establish a Police Oversight Commission and add a Director of Police Oversight position. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_05242022_22-0619

Item 39 is a report from City Manager. Recommendation to convene the Charter Amendment Committee of the City Council within 30 days to discuss placing a charter amendment. City Charter Amendment before the voters to establish a Police Oversight Commission and add a director police oversight position citywide. Great. I'd like to get a staff report on this particular item. Sure. I will give a really brief overview, but I'd like to introduce Patrick Leathers and from the Citizen Police Complaint Commission. He's the manager of that program, as well as Anita Lakhani, who worked out of the city attorney's office to prepare the draft language for the charter amendment. Looks like. Oh, thank you. So just to give a little bit more background on this, I think you're aware that in May of last year, an independent consulting firm did a an in-depth study of the current Citizen Police Complaint Commission process, and they came back with a report and a series of recommendations back to this commission or to the council here in February of this year. The city council considered that report and directed staff and the city attorney to begin the charter amendment process that essentially had two, two steps to it to, number one, draft the charter amendment language and number two, to initiate the meeting come for process. So I'd like to just walk through briefly what has happened since that time. As I mentioned before, the city attorney has prepared draft charter language, charter amendment language that would amend Article one eight of the city charter, that would fundamentally establish a director of police oversight, as well as a restructured police oversight commission. And that that effort, the draft language has been completed. The next step that was required was for the city team to to start the the labor negotiations with the affected labor groups, essentially regarding that restructuring that has been proposed, the restructuring of the Citizen Police Complaint Commission and the action that is being requested tonight is for the City Council to approve directing or referring this matter to the citizen, to the Charter Amendment Committee. And that is what is being asked of the city council tonight. Next slide. And I'd just like to briefly walk you through if the charter amendment is passed, there is a series of actions that would still need to be done in order for that this change to occur. Number one, the city council would need to appoint a police oversight director. We would need to establish and appoint a new a police oversight commission. The current charter language proposes to amend the number and the term of the citizen police complaint. The third, I should call it the right term Police Oversight Commission. And the that changes essentially to be consistent with other charter commissions in the city. The other action would be to move forward with the staffing and the administrative management functions of the Commission, and that would be laid out in the municipal code. The other two actions would be authorizing the city council would need to authorize a budget for the Commission, for their administrative and management operations and a budget and the amount that will be sufficient for them to conduct the duties that are outlined in the Charter amendment. And lastly, the other item that would need to occur would be for the meeting confer process. Should that charter amendment pass, we would need to continue those meet and confer discussions in order to address any of the affected labor impacts to the affected bargaining groups. So with that action, if the Council refers this tonight to the charter committee, there would be three hearings of the charter committee between June 14th and August 9th. And then there is another series of steps that all of the other all charter amendments would be subject to. That is getting direct arguments and impartial analysis of the of the language in the charter and of course, submitting rebuttals to the clerk and lastly, mailing the sample ballots out to the electorate. And of course, the election in November 8th. So that's a really brief overview of the process between now and the final election. I'm available to answer any questions. So I'll take the privilege to ask the first question. Obviously, the item before us is referring it to the charter commission. What what authority does the charter commission have when they when we when they meet? And if you could just for those paying attention here in the audience and those at home, you just outlined who the charter commission is. Yes. Chair Austin, thank you. The Charter Amendment Committee is a committee of the whole. It is the members of the city council as a whole, as a body sit on that committee. This the three meetings, as identified by Linda Tatum, would then be joint meetings of the Charter Amendment Committee and the City Council. So your discussion at those three meetings will determine what this final item will look like. And then at that final third meeting, council will be asked to take a vote on whether to place that item on the ballot or not. So so the charter amendment committee would have the ability to to tweak what has been presented to me. Correct. They they could tweak it. They could decide not to move forward with it. They have a wide range of authority to decide what they would like to place on the ballot, if anything. Okay. And so this action tonight, voting on this tonight actually just moves the process to the charter amendment committee. That's correct. It would allow you to begin those discussions at that first meeting. I just wanted to get that clarification. Thank you. Councilmember You're not going to Germany. No, but thank you for that clarification. Councilmember Super. No. I think this was answered with the chair's question. But if we go back to that slide where it has IT director position listed and for those who didn't follow this previously, I think there was a discussion in this body that it would be a director and even a salary was suggested. So this position would kind of take the place of what the city manager's function is now with the current. That is that is generally correct. If you go back to the the report, it very specifically lays out the role, but it is roughly the equivalent of a director in any other city department. And yes, it would essentially replace that role currently that's in the city manager's office. So to Councilman Austin's question, approval of this tonight does not lock in that position or does it? It does not. It is. We have a draft for discussion prepared for the Charter Amendment Committee to consider and discuss and based upon the direction we receive can be changed. Okay. Thank you. As I said, Councilman Austin asked the question it was answered. But I just want to clarify that specific point. Thank you. Is there any public comment on this item? No public comment. No public comment. See no other queued up behind the real members less well. The motion is. Carried. Great. The next item is item new business number 40.

Recommendation to request City Attorney to prepare a resolution to support a fair and free union election for Security Guards at CommonSpirit/ Dignity Health facilities.

LongBeachCC_08032021_21-0753

Item 28 Communication from Councilwoman Sara. Councilwoman Zendejas. Councilwoman Allen. Vice Mayor Richardson Recommendation to request City Attorney to prepare a resolution to support a fair and free union election for security guards at common. Spirit. Dignity. Health Facilities. Councilwoman Ciro. Thank you, Mayor. And first one to think, Vice Mayor Richardson and Councilmember Sunday has an Allen for signing on to this item. You know, during the pandemic, we saw how valuable our frontline workers are and they still are. And the security guards at Common Spirit, Dignity, health facilities are part of these workers. They were on the front line day after day, standing side by side to all hospital work. Staff and numerous security officers have reported contracting COVID 19 and have also, you know, it's impacted their family due to inadequate equipment. So this has caused many of the security guards to sign on to a petition to becoming part of SEIU. And so I fully support them in their decision in wanting a fair and free election to join SEIU, UAW. And, you know, the security guards were some of the many heroes during the pandemic. And they should have the ability to decide to join a unit that's meant to improve their well-being on the job site. I also just want to share to that kind of out of an abundance of caution of the Delta variant and the nature of their work, they couldn't be present today. But I know that they're listening and counting on us to stand with them in this fight, to enjoy basic protection or in their workplace. So, so. So I ask my colleagues to support this item, to prepare a resolution to support the security guards at common spirit, dignity, health, to have a fair and free election to join SEIU. One point of clarification that I wanted to just make is, you know, on the agenda item, it doesn't it doesn't state. It's different from the subject of what's in my agenda item I submitted and I wanted to clarify that it should be the subject is to a resolution to support security officers that common spirit dignity health to join SEIU UAW. Thank you. Thank you. Before I turn it over to Vice Mayor Richardson, I just want to make a few brief remarks. So I'm very, very happy to not just support this resolution, but just to say a few brief remarks. Also, I want to thank Councilwoman Sato in particular for bringing this forward. But I do want to share a very short story because it means personally a lot to me. And I have a lot of love for the SEIU, UAW family. In fact, I consider myself part of of this family. In about a year before my mom passed away, she actually had been working at our same clinic for about almost 25 years. In the time that she worked at her clinic. She was considered a low wage worker, worked very hard, always went to work, rarely called in sick, rarely got a raise. But loved her job and had a lot of integrity as an immigrant woman working in her workplace. After about 20, 20 plus years, she continued and continued to wanting to work at her location. I think folks know that as a frontline worker. My mom also, unfortunately passed away to the pandemic, as do many women that are in spaces of health care spaces. My mom, just a few months before she passed, actually became a member of SEIU, UAW within the last year of her life. As she was approached, her and her her coworkers were approached and discussed the idea of actually forming and joining this union. And this group of six women at her workplace were very nervous to do it. They did not want to lose their jobs. They were a little bit nervous about taking a step forward and asking for an election for union membership. But they did it. And I remember my mom came to me and said, hey, you know, you, me, how what do you what do you think? I'm really scared to do this. But they are saying that they would represent us and fight for fair wages and represent us at the at the workplace. And my mom was the last person to ever ask for a raise. She never did because she would never do it. But she thought here a group or a union that would actually advocate for her on her behalf. And so a year before, about a year before she passed, she began her and these other women organizing and won an election at the site and became the first union at my mom's clinic. And they were represented by SEIU, UAW. And so I'm very grateful to to the workers of SEIU, UAW for welcoming my mom. She became a very proud member of the union very quickly. And when I talked to these security guards at this facility and at facilities across the state, folks should know that these security guards also are in a similar situation where they don't feel heard. They don't feel they have representation. And and in many cases are the only people on the campus that don't have union representation. And so I'm happy and proud to support this organizing of these workers. Just I was proud to support my mom's organizing and her job when she took that step forward as well and was welcomed into the SEIU, UAW family. And so as a proud member of that family, I want to thank Councilman Sauro for for this resolution. And I'm very proud to support it. Rosemarie Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And thank you, Councilwoman Ciro, for bringing this this resolution forward. Certainly happy to support it. You know, I think just over the course of the past year and a half, we've seen significant changes in our economy. And we've talked about the k-shaped recovery, how low wage workers are feeling the most, the most they've had the most significant impacts. And they show up every day. They show up every day. They protect us, the security officers. And very difficult times, you know, when folks you know, many of us have the privilege of staying home and working remotely. They don't have that privileged security officers. They have to step forward and do their jobs. And in this time, you know, folks are leaning going back to what they know. Economy is shifting. Significant impacts. They're going back to what they know and what they know that works in difficult times is forming a union. They want to protect their jobs. They want to protect dignity in the workforce. So they're taking steps to do what they never done in forming union. And I support that effort. And I think that's something that history has shown us, has worked, and we certainly support those workers. In terms of SEIU, I certainly appreciate the comments by my colleagues have said, you know, I remember when I was, you know, a college student at Cal State Dominguez Hills, my mom went back to school to be a CNA, and she worked at Huntington Memorial Hospital and she was a SEIU UAW member. And I remember the pride that she had being a rank and file union member and a nurse's aide. And so these are very personal efforts. And so I certainly appreciate Councilwoman Ciro for speaking up and saying we're not just supporting security officers, we're support and security officers that form a union and join SEIU instead of you, because that comes with a certain level of dignity and a certain level of pride. So thank you so much and I'm happy to support this. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Ellen. Thank you, Mayor. And I also just want to say thank you to Councilman Ciro for bringing this forward and Vice Mayor Richardson and Councilman Zendaya's for signing on to this very important item, these workers. Just like your mom did, mayor absolutely deserve the right to organize and collective bargaining. We have to make sure that these officers feel safe, valued and taken care of. I just strongly support this item. Union jobs promote safe working conditions. They help workers secure their livelihoods and they make sure that they are treated fairly. So thank you again, Councilman Sorrell, for bringing this forward. And I will be supporting this item. Thank you. Councilman's in the house. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Councilwoman Zahra, for putting this item forward. And thank you, Councilwoman Allen and Vice Mayor Richardson also as well for supporting this very important item. The pandemic has exacerbated any inequality ability and unsafe working conditions for many people, and it is so important to support and stand by our workers who are speaking up on these injustices. I think creating the opportunity for workers to unionize is a step in the right direction to ensure that our residents have adequate and equitable working conditions. It is also very important to make sure that this resolution include the naming as a union that these that these hardworking individuals have petitioned for, which is SEIU. Each of you. So I'm very, very happy to support this item. I don't believe there's any public comment. So, members, please go ahead and cast your vote. Motion carries.

Recommendation to adopt resolution preliminarily approving the Engineer's Report and mailing of benefit assessment ballots for the Mosquito and Vector Control Program (VCP) to property owners within the boundaries of the proposed benefit assessment district; setting the date of Tuesday, July 2, 2019 for the public hearing on the proposed VCP benefit assessment;

LongBeachCC_05072019_19-0452

Motion carries. 35. Please report from Health and Human Services recommendation to adopt a resolution preliminarily approving the engineer's report and mailing of benefit assessment ballots for the mosquito and vector control program to property owners within the boundaries of the proposed Benefit Assessment District. Setting the date of Tuesday, July 2nd, 2019, for the public hearing. Adopt a resolution adopting proposition to one eight assessment ballot proceedings procedures and authorize city manager to direct the city's consultant SDI Consulting Group to proceed with the mailing of the VCP benefit assessment ballots on May 17th, 2019 citywide. Here's the motion in a second. Is there any public comment on this item? See? None. Please cast your votes. Councilmember Richardson. Motion carries. Item 37. Actually, I think I am 36. Let me actually do. I am 37. Let me do 137.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the Landmark Preservation Board; amending Section 25.12.270 of the Seattle Municipal Code to change the qualifications for members of the Board, and making technical corrections.

SeattleCityCouncil_09082015_CB 118468

Agenda Item 36 Council Bill 118468. Relating to the Landmark Preservation Board amending section 25.12.270 of the Seattle Municipal Code to change the qualifications for members of the board and making technical corrections. The committee recommends a council bill pass. Thank you. Councilmember Bagshaw Thank you very much. This piece of legislation actually amends the qualification for members of the Landmarks Preservation Board. To date, we currently require a representative from the City Planning Commission to attend and be part of the Preservation Board. And the City Planning Commission actually raised their hand and said, we've got a lot to do. And rather than having members of the Planning Commission be part of this, the Landmarks Preservation Board members are suggesting that the volunteer be changed to recruit a member of the instead of the planning commission, but somebody who's got the similar kind of experience. So that's the recommendation and the legislation passed unanimously out of the committee. And we ask for your support. Thank you. Questions or comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill. Harold. All right. Look at it. Hi. O'Brien, Okamoto. Rasmussen. All right, sir. Want back shot? I got it. I am President Burgess nine in favor and opposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read item 37.

A proclamation commemorating the 50th Anniversary of the National Chicano Youth Liberation Conference in Denver and the West High Blowouts.

DenverCityCouncil_03112019_19-0233

And for 32, if you're here for one of the public hearings, that won't happen till after recess. And you can go watch on TV and 432 and come on back in when when that is there. Thank you very much. All right. That brings up our next proclamation. Councilman Lopez, will you please read Proclamation 233? Thank you, Mr. President. Proclamation 233 series of 2019 commemorating the 50th anniversary of the National Chicano Youth Liberation Conference in Denver and the West. High blow out. Whereas, led by two young Chicanos, Ginny Perez and Priscilla Martinez, students at West High School walked out of class on March 20th, 1969, in protest of discrimination and institutional racism by faculty and administrators. And. Whereas, the students, supported by their families, community members and the Crusade for Justice demonstrated and were met with police batons and tear gas canisters. And. WHEREAS, The Crusade for Justice, founded in 1965 and led by Rodolfo Corky Gonzalez, was a community based organization focused on providing employment, legal defense, education, civil rights, political action , immigration, cultural and recreational services. And. WHEREAS, weeks later, the first National Chicano Youth Liberation Conference was held here in Denver on March 27th through the 30th, that the Crusade for Justice, where students and leaders from across the country gathered to create and plan a spiritual. Aslan and a plan to Santa Barbara, a Chicano plan for higher education, both of which gave rise to the Chicano movement here and throughout the country. And. Whereas, these events helped create a National Movimiento that inspired and gave rise to today's Mexican-American leaders in the arts, business, community, education, government, law, literature and medicine. And. Whereas, nearly one in three persons in Denver and one out of every four children in Colorado is a mexican of Mexican-American descent, still faces discrimination in the classroom, workplace and in public life, resulting in high poverty rates and growing disparities of access in education, health care, income, justice and political representation. And. WHEREAS, the week of March 19 through the 30th, 2019 will mark the 50th anniversary of the West High Blowouts and the National Chicano Youth Liberation Conference in Denver. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver. Section one. At the Council of the City and County of Denver Honors Colorado, Colorado's Mexican roots Chicano history and recognizes the values and rich contributions to science, philosophy, arts and culture to the history of our state. Our city, our state, and our country. Section two that the Council of the City and County of Denver continue to promote equality and justice for all people and opposes discrimination in our city. Section three. At the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall attest and affixed the seal of the city of County of Denver to this proclamation, and that copies be transmitted to the Denver Agency for Human Rights. And Community Partnerships, the Denver logo for Corky Gonzalez Branch Library. Denver West High School. And the Colorado History Museum. Thank you. Councilman Lopez, your motion to adopt. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that proclamation to 33 series of 2019 be adopted. It has been moved and seconded. Comments by members of council. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. It gives me quite a feeling of pride to say this in our in our council chambers. And I'm sorry. I don't know why I'm all emotional here, man. Uh huh. My voice cracks because you know how far it's taken us and how long it's getting it's gotten for us, and how long this path has been to come into these chambers with these words and in this with this proclamation. It means so much to me. And there's a lot of folks here in the chambers and in our community and folks who are at home and watching this because for so long. In a land that that that we hope the name. And found. And so the. The the. And for so long that we have not been welcome. And now, especially now in this era, it means it means so much to be able to read these words and talk about this proclamation, especially in this area. Right. There are two events and there are a lot of them. We have a lot of different things that have happened in our history that have helped steer the course of our history in Denver. But there are two young women, Priscilla Martinez and Jeannie Perez, who at West High School were ridiculed. Were all this her or her students? The rest of the students, the rest of the Chicano students at West High School ridiculed for speaking Spanish. They were told it was an inferior language. They mispronounce their names and when they corrected their names to the teacher in this one, Mr. Schafer. He would reiterate. And they would deal with this every single day in class. That's institutional racism. And. With the help of the folks in the community. Now with the crusade for justice and the different movements that were happening throughout our city. They walked out. You were trained through the Freedom School. They protested. Community met them outside. Welcome. Even in the face of batons and gas masks. And being chased down the street away from their school for peacefully demonstrating. I only learned about this. Sadly when I was already in college. Through an organization called Matcha, which I belong to the Chicano Student Movement. Up until then. I had the same kind of experience when I was in first grade. A lot of folks don't realize I had to go through first grade twice. My teacher would put me up in class after I would correct her about a Spanish word Konerko She would call it Conejo. And I said, Don't miss. I think this this name is I think the Rabbit's name in the Southwest. The book that you're reading to us is Conejo. And I was proud to actually know that she got me up in front of the class and told me, Mr. Lopez, only clowns speak Spanish. And you're not a clown, are you? In front of my whole class. That broke my spirit. I did not want to be Mexican. And it wasn't until I started learning about the Chicano movement and learning about who we were and the history in this state and the celebration of one's own culture. And it doesn't require the contempt of another. Right. So which is what Cesar Chavez would say, though? That walkout meant a lot and that walkout was a starting point. The National Chicano Youth Liberation Conference was also another starting point is when our community started becoming organized by students. The L.A. Line really the this the spiritual set of goals and cultural goals for us as a community to start feeling pride in a land that we we are usually not the the of Santa Barbara which talked about Chicanos and higher ed and how we got to go to college and graduate and not be the only ones . And to this day, there are a lot of firsts in our community, and some of us aspire to be the first in a lot of different things. But what these documents with this proclamation really reiterates for us as a community. Is that while it's important to be the first sometimes. It's much more important never to be the last in. And that's what this is about. I know that there are so many distinguished guests here tonight in the council chambers. What I have here to my left is the original Chicano students demands at West High School that I was able to get a hold of through an FBI file that had been released and made public. The other thing that was very interesting to me is that right after the walkouts, I discovered, you know, somebody had alluded to a proclamation that the council took a proclamation. The council took a resolution at that time about the walkouts. And so I started looking and I asked the clerk in recorder's office, as I can, you find these documents and this is the beautiful thing about, about, about that office is that our history is written in our history, saved in that office. Right. This is a proclamation, a resolution in 12 of 1969, recognizing and commending the Denver police and the fire departments and members thereof. Whereas in the past week, civil disorders, disturbances and demons demonstrations have been occurring in the city and basically praising for using the tear gas and the baton and handling the use of force. My how times have changed because when there's a demonstration, when we had all these kids walk out recently, they did not respond that way. So I do this. I thank you, Mr. President. Thank you for the time. Colleagues. This was just this is a very excuse. My my my lengthy discussion here. But it's just it means so much to me in this council chambers and to us as a community to do this. And we'll bring some folks up in a second. But, uh, with that. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilman Brooks. Yeah. I just want to I want to say this because this is happening in our community right now and just stand in solidarity with my brother, Councilman Lopez. And and I say this is happened in our community is there is and has been black and brown violence. But the reality is we stand in solidarity as the as we used to always talk about this Councilman Lopez, the African Aztec Alliance, because we've gone through the same struggle as African-Americans in northeast Denver. And so I just want to say that I want to say that publicly and through issues that are happening in our community today , we still and leaders should say this at every outset that we still stand in solidarity and we're we're bigger than the issues that are that we're facing today. So. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilman Lopez. Rebeca, I forgot to mention. So, Mr. President, we do have somebody in our in our chambers that may not be up here earlier. But I wanted to also recognize state representative said and Gonzalez Gutierrez said enough. You want a state representative you can stand up represent northwest and. I meant to thing you earlier, but she, in fact, is not just our wonderful state representative, my state representative, but also the granddaughter of Adolfo Corky Gonzalez. Thank you, Councilman Lopez, and welcome, Councilman Lopez, thank you for bringing this forward and thank you for sharing your story and your words. And I think with that, we're ready to take a vote on this. So, Madam Secretary, roll call. Lopez. Si, se puede. Hi. Black Eye Brooks. Hi, Espinosa. Flynn. Hi. Gilmore, i. Herndon, I. Cashman. Hi, New. Testament. Hi, Mr. President. Right. Madam Secretary, please close the voting, announce the results. 11 Eyes. 11 eyes proclamation to 33 has been adopted. We do have 5 minutes allocated for proclamation acceptance. Councilman Lopez, who would you like to bring up? There are two individuals that I wanted to bring of three. I'm sorry. So first. The incomparable Jerry Garcia Gonzalez, the wife of Corky Gonzalez. Dr. Antonio Esquivel. And then in on Gonzalez Gutierrez, our state representative, the honorable. Good evening. I'm Dr. Antonio Scoville. I'm an emeritus professor and former member of the Board of Trustees of Metropolitan State University. I'm also the former chair of La Scala Theater, also the Crusade for Justice, Good of the Service by Gonzalez. I'm also a long time associate and friend of the Gonzalez family at the request of Jerry Gonzalez. I have been asked to say a few words and elected. Just make five real quick points. I want to talk about the crusade for justice. Second, I want to talk briefly about the West High School blowout. I want to talk about the first National Chicano Youth Conference. I want to talk about the influences of those three events. And then I want to talk about the event that you're honoring today, the 50 year tribute to the crusade for justice. You know, Chicano movement of the 1960s and eighties arose in an era when Mexican-Americans vowed to create a better world. They called themselves Chicanos and Chicanos. Terms that reflect the history of conquest and that deprive people of their Mexican and indigenous roots. And characterize Mexicans as inferior. My first topic, The Concern for Justice was founded in Denver in 1965. It was the most active, best known, most controversial of all Chicano organizations, and it garnered the most media attention. Its leader would also Coco Gonzalez was a boxer, poet, playwright, lecturer, politician, activist, community organizer and publisher. The Crusades, a militant activism, generated not only strong support, but strong opposition, especially from law enforcement. The Crusade for Justice is a full blown, comprehensive civil rights and human rights organization. It provided a full array of community services, community services and employment, legal defense, education. Civil rights, political action. Immigration and recreation. The Crusade for Justice Building on 1610 Downing had a bookstore, curio shop, a large lunch room, a boxing gym, a 500 seat auditorium, 24 classrooms, several offices, a lounge, an art studio and a print shop. It housed Bartlett, Chicano, the Athlon and the theater group, and throughout the Pachuco it housed as Collateral, which starred students from preschool to graduate to undergraduate school. It also housed the La Raza Junior Party. My second topic is the worst high school blowout of 1969 and 1969. A social studies teacher at West High School made anti-Mexican remarks in class and this incident that West High School walkout. The teacher reportedly said All Mexicans are stupid because their parents are stupid and their parents before them are stupid. And he said, if you eat Mexican food, you're going to look like a mexican. That's what caused the walkout. You know, this walkout, another walkouts by Chicano students. A number demanded curriculum reforms in schools, primarily the inclusion of history, culture and a key contribution of Chicanos. They also demand an end, mostly for the students who walked out. You know, I guess a lot of people like to a lot of people and it looked like us Mexicans because they eat a lot of Mexican food. That. You know, my third topic is the crusade for Justice is housing those three national Chicano youth conferences in 1969, 1970 and 1971, from their very first conference of one year honor. Today we and which were celebrated this Saturday, was held on March 27th through 30th of 1969, 50 years ago. Out of that came that plan the spiritual the Aslan which set the goals for the Chicano movement. Over 1500 participants participated in the conference. They came from all over the country. So that conference and the West High School walkout, as we call it, the West High School blow out, put the Chicano in Denver and a crusade for justice on the national map. This conference created a renaissance, a revival of Chicano literature, art, music, dance, poetry and theater. It inspired and motivated generation to write, to get themselves involved in improving the condition of us in this country. It inspired and inspired Chicano studies programs on college campuses and student groups. My first topic is this influence that these events had on our community. They inspired today's Chicano and Chicano writers, poets, artists, musicians, dancers, actors, politicians, lawyers and educators. Colorado influential leaders who were influenced by this by these events include Ken Salazar, the former secretary of interior. Federico Pena, the former mayor of Denver. And the lieutenant governor who's now the president of the community college system, Dr. Joe Garcia. The activists of the 1960s and seventies set the stage for the social justice activities of today. Corky Gonzalez influenced a generation of Chicanos and Chicanos to get involved politically, including today's young politicians like Lisa Calderon, who is running for mayor and Cristante Cristante that run the former speaker of the House who is now running for U.S. Congress . So in spite of these events, Chicanos and Latinos of today, Latinos and Chicanos and Latinos of the day are addressing the issues of voter rights, access, criminal justice, economic development, housing, education, energy, environment, human and health services, immigration, and the LGBTQ issues not only with our community, but outside of our community. My fifth topic and I'll end here is that we'd like to invite you to help us celebrate the 50 year tribute to the Crusade for Justice being held this Saturday at 530 at South Rialto on seventh in Santa Fe. There will be food, more presentations and discussions on the topics that I've just barely touched on this this evening. So we hope to see you there. All right. Thank you very much. And thank you, Councilman Lopez, again, for bringing that forward this evening. That concludes our proclamations that are called out. We will have one more going through and consent. But that brings us to the bills for introduction.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Use District Map of the City of Long Beach as said Map has been established and amended by amending portions of Part 22 of said Map from CCA (Community Commercial Automobile-oriented) to R-4-N (Medium-Density, Multiple Residential) and CCA (Community Commercial Automobile-Oriented) to R-3-T (Multi-family Residential, Townhouse), read and adopted as read. (District 8)

LongBeachCC_08112020_20-0747

Thank you. With that, we're going to go and move to the hearing aid. Can you please call with the U.N.. Report from Development Services recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record. Include the public hearing, declare ordinance approving a zone change. Read the first time lead over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for final reading and approve a site plan review to allow the construction of 18 for sale. Three story townhomes located at 4800 Long Beach Boulevard, District eight. Thank you. I was trying to develop the service staff. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Members of the city council. Mr. Koonce is here to give you a brief presentation. Good evening. Members of the Council. Agenda item number eight as well as agenda item number nine are two important projects in Council Member Austin's district. I'm particularly excited and we should all be excited about these projects because they represent what's called missing middle housing, which is housing that is accessible to working folks in our community, that is built at a higher density than a single family home, but is of an elegant size and density that blends well into our existing communities, such as the corridor of Long Beach Boulevard. In this case, this is a former redevelopment property that's been vacant since 2013. It's been discussed for development since as early as 2007. So the community has been incredibly patient in this project moving forward. It's located in the Adams neighborhood of the Greater North Long Beach area near the Union Pacific Railroad, right of way between 49th and the railroad. The two adjacent properties are also zoned K and have single family homes. The area surrounding the property is a mix of multi-family as well as single family residences. What's proposed here are 18 townhouses. There will be three bedroom, three bath units located in buildings over the 48,000 square foot site. The buildings are oriented towards Long Beach Boulevard with a generous amount of landscaping, as well as some townhomes facing the corridor. And there's a third building with two additional units behind the primary building. That project in front of council involves a number of planning actions. Zone change from K to are four an as well as a zone change on adjacent lots from K to our three T, which will provide a consistent pattern of development. It also includes a passing tentative track map. This will subdivide the parcel and allow for a subdivision airspace. These are ownership units, which is an important benefit of this project. The Planning Commission previously approved this project and the staff site plan review approval occurred back on December 11th of 2019. When the Planning Commission heard this item on June 18th, there was nothing but positive comments from the public and from the commission themselves. So with that, that concludes the staff report and I'm glad to answer any questions on this item. Thank you very much. Consider us and this is your end. Would you like to speak on it? Yes. Thank you very much. And I just want to say thank you to our city staff, particularly our Development Services Department, for their presentation and their diligent work on this project, as well as our economic development department, who is overseeing the sale of these properties. I also like to thank City Ventures for their work and their partnership. And while we have two separate hearings this evening, one for the 4800 block of Long Beach Boulevard and the other for the 5100 block of Long Beach Boulevard. Many of my comments will pertain to both proposed developments. These projects have been in the works for a very long time, has been mentioned. These two locations were acquired by the city's redevelopment agency and most of the previous uses were cleared more than a decade ago with the intent to build more housing along the corridor. When the state eliminated redevelopment in 2011, the city could not move forward with any name for a few years until going through a process and getting a long range property management plan approved by the state of California for former redevelopment properties. Finally, four years ago in 2016, we approved the purchase and sale agreement with City Ventures to develop housing on these two sites. Since that time, City Ventures has developed plans, made numerous time with the community and nearby neighborhood associations, and engaged in many discussions with development services and economic development teams about parking and open space requirements and how they will have the housing cancel out. They were also preparation for seaboard environmental documents before I went to the Planning Commission where it was unanimously recommended. I believe at the end of the day we will have a great project that will bring new for sale housing that is desperately needed while transforming Lombard Boulevard. The corridor in Virginia Village. These developments will build 56 new net zero energy homes. That means the development is fully electric, reduced rooftop solar panels with the and will provide energy used on site. This is the type of sustainable, responsible housing development we should be encouraging throughout our city. We also have significant need for new housing, including homeownership opportunities. These townhomes will allow family families to become first time homebuyers. The staff report mentions there is an expressed need to satisfy a local shortage for units for larger families, which is three bedroom townhomes will address. We witnessed this demand for such housing when 131 new homes were just built all down the street from this project at the Riverdale, and they were sold in a record time just last year. Again, I want to thank everybody who is involved in making this happen, and particularly the city ventures for spending time and engaging the community , including when we shared a virtual town hall just two weeks ago. I received positive feedback. Many residents were asking to be put on the list when they go on the market, which leads me to one question for the applicant. If this project is approved. This Boston, you have one main issue. This is a presentation. Okay. But I do have a question. How soon do we expect to have be able to break ground on this project when this after this vote this evening? And is somebody available to answer that question? Either way, since my time is moving, I like to move to close the public hearing. Adopt a mitigated negative negative declaration, declare the ordinance approving a zone change. Read the first time laid over the next regular meeting and approve a site plan review. Tentative track map to allow for construction of 18 three storey townhomes and 4800 block of London School of Art. Thank you. Gasping on that is my motion. Yes. Yes. Do we have a second? You it. You second this motion. USA. USA seconded the motion. Do you want to speak on issue? As a council member. Austin said it all very, very well. Thank you. Okay, Brian, is there any other excuse me, Councilwoman Richardson would like speak also? I'm sorry. I was just giving up the second set of complaint that councilwoman up. Right. And I was just queuing up 2 seconds. Okay. Thank you. I think everyone, we have any public comment on this that. We do have public comment online, but we have. Can you tell the applicant? Do you have anything to add? Our senior vice president can hear me. Okay. Yes. This is temporary to tell senior vice president of development for City Ventures. I just wanted to say we are so excited to get going on these projects. We have been working on them for several years. And, you know, following the success of our Hudson project, we think these are going to be absolutely fantastic. And we have construction drawings, to answer your question, ready to go into plan Czech in September. And so we will be processing our plans through the city and hoping to get going on the projects as early as early next year. Great. Thank you. Thank you very much. We have a first and second grade. Could you please cover for the vote? District one. I district to. I District three. I. District Court. I. District five i. District six. And. Seven. I. District eight. District nine. All right. Chris. Thank you very much. Now we're going to move on to item of the hearing excuse me here at 9:00. Could you please cover the hearing? But I'll start with you and administer this hearing.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 1521-1535 West 34th Avenue and 3400 Osage Street in Highland. Approves an official map amendment to rezone land at 1521-1535 West 34th Avenue and 3400 Osage Street from U-TU-B2 DO-4 to U-MX-2x (urban, two-unit to urban, mixed-use), in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 11-21-17.

DenverCityCouncil_01022018_17-1266

Speakers will stay on topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to council members. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilwoman, can each what you put council bill 1266 on the floor? Yes. And if I may, Mr. President, may I acknowledge our former colleague, Councilwoman Cathy Donohue, who's in the house tonight, as we try to have was in the house for a moment, but we try to always acknowledge our former colleagues. Thank you, Councilman. Yes, Mr. President, I move that council bill 1266 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved. And second it the public hearing for Council Bill 26 is open and we have a staff report. Scott Robinson. Thank you. Council President Brooks and members of Council Scott Robinson with Community Planning and Development. This is a request to rezone 1521 to 1535 West 34th Avenue and 3400 Osage Street from YouTube to deal for. To you and X to x. Property is located in Council District one in the highland neighborhood at the northeast corner of 34th Avenue and Osage Street. The property is about 9300 square feet. It's currently a mixed use building on the property, including the Korean Japanese restaurant and several residential units. The applicant has stated they're requesting the rezoning to match the zoning to the existing uses and so that they can more easily maintain the existing uses on the property. So the request is to rezone from YouTube to dial for which is urban neighborhood context to unit residential. The B2 is about 4500 square foot minimal lot size, and the deal for is a design overlay that allows for reduced side setbacks on narrow lots. To resound to you and x to x, which is also in the urban neighborhood. Context mixed use two storey maximum height. The property is surrounded by the same YouTube to deal for zoning. For about a block in each direction with some other zoning further out. As stated, the site currently is mixed use with a restaurant and residential units on it, surrounded by a wide mix of uses, single unit to unit and multi-unit residential as well as some commercial, industrial and other mixed use properties in the neighborhood. You can see the subject property there in the center on the right. And a sampling of the types of residential surrounding it in the other pictures. This went to the planning board on November 1st where they unanimously, unanimously recommended approval, went to the Land Use Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on November 21st, where they moved it forward. The only public comment previously we have received is a letter of conditional support from the Highland United neighbors that you'll find in your pocket. In order to approve a zoning, the city must find that these five criteria have been met. The first criterion is consistency with adopted plans. There are three plans that apply to this property, first being comprehensive plan 2000 as described in the staff report to see that staff has found the process first rezoning is consistent with these six strategies from complaint to housing, mostly relating to encouraging infill and mixed use development. The second plan is Blueprint Denver. From 2000 to Blueprint, Denver designates the future land concept land use for this property as single family duplex, which calls for moderately dense residential areas with some complimentary, small scale commercial uses, such as what would be allowed in the U.S. next to X. It's also an area of stability which calls for, in some cases, rezoning. To align the zoning with the existing uses was, which is what this proposal would do. Both West 34th Avenue and Osage Street are on designated locals. The Highland Neighborhood Plan is from 1986, so an older plan, but it still applies. It recommends increasing neighborhood employment opportunities, stabilizing the housing market by encouraging a variety of residential and mixed use projects, and encouraging small infill developments such as mom and pop shops and low to low density multi-family housing, such as those that would be allowed under the EULEX two acts. It also includes specific recommendations for the small shopping district along a 34th Avenue at Osage and Navajo, such as sprucing up but maintaining the the small shopping district there. The subject property is also within so barrier 13 of the plan. It calls for improving and stabilizing residential areas, encouraging reuse of vacant or abandoned commercial structures. Likely this one isn't vacant, abandoned or vacant yet, but the rezoning would allow it to continue and discouraging further industrial and commercial encroachment. This is an existing commercial structure, so it's not additional encroachment, just maintaining the existing use. So staff finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the adopted plans. The second criterion is uniformity of district regulations. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning would result in the uniform application of the U.N. text to Zone District. The third criterion is to further the public health, safety and general welfare of the city. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning would do so by implementing the city's adaptive plans and facilitating reinvestment in an existing business and an existing structure. The fourth criterion is a justifying circumstance that finds that the proposed rezoning is justified by the change in changing conditions in the Highland neighborhood. There's been a significant amount of redevelopment in the area, an increase in population. That's increased demand for commercial uses, such as what is on the property and residential uses. So aligning the zoning with the existing uses so that they can be maintained was justified by the changes in the neighborhood. And the fifth criterion is consistency with the neighborhood context zone, district, purpose and intent. Staff finds that the proposed new annex to EX would facilitate development that is consistent with the urban neighborhood context and the intent of the Annex two zone district. So Steph finds that all five criteria have been met and recommends approval. I'll be happy to answer any questions. All right. Thank you, Scott. We have two speakers this evening. Ask them to come to the front. Alex Johnson and Chairman Sekou. Hi. My name is Alex Johnson. I understand representative of the property owner looking to request the zoning change from here for any questions. Okay. Thank you. All right, Chairman Sekou, you have 6 minutes. Yes. Good evening. My name is Chairman Sekou. I represent the Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense Resident City County in Denver, 65 years representing poor, working, poor and homeless people. We support this zoning change. For all the outlined reasons. Plus, this represents an opportunity for economic development for poor, working poor folk. And we would implore the. Folks as you go about doing this thing. To employ local folks and utilize some of the labor forces that are there so that. We as a city. Can come up with this project. Now part of the deal that we experience over and over again is that we are positioned. In the growth of the city and the planned developments of this city were, in fact, that were part of the labor force who helped build the city. And from that, we don't have the resources to have so that we can be vibrant, productive members. Of what's going on. So we need these jobs and we need them badly. And so I would implore folks as they go about their processes of development to. Get in contact with those resources that you have. Also a joint partnership with the union so that we develop the skilled labor in the process of doing this thing. And as we rush toward getting these projects completed, let's see if we can get some plumbers out of this deal for poor people trained and some painters trained. And not just people who stand on the corner holding the sign for traffic. We're actually skilled labor so that that labor can be transformed into a permanent position. So that basically we evolved from being poor and we advance ourselves up the scale. So the history of the city has been a top down organization in terms of how they go about doing things, and the trickle down process just doesn't work. And so by the time it trickles down, there's nothing left for us to do or that we're in training programs that last longer than the project. So then we're trained to be unemployed. And so we must bridge the gap on this thing. And in the time, lies have to be organized. And I salute you, Councilman Brooks, for being on top of this kind of thing, because I know you've been doing a lot of work in the community to get the laborers skills and whatnot being boosted up through community organizations like the Urban League and whatnot. So as we continue on this process of. I just want to again say. Thank you for taking on the task and to stay consistent with the process. And that's about all I got to say. So I'm gonna cut this short because I know you all really want to go to the big show. Everybody here for the big show. So I'm through. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Sekou. All right. This concludes our speakers for Council Bill 1266 questions. Members of Council Council Mauritania. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to ask the applicants, Representative. I don't see anybody here from the honey neighborhood. If there is, maybe they could raise their hand and come forward. What I'm trying to find out is the letter from the neighborhood association, which looks more like a resolution than a letter, speaks to a number of conditions. And I'm trying to find out if there is if there were covenants filed or is this just, you know, a gentlemen's agreement between the neighborhood and the applicant who is proposing the rezoning? So yeah, with the the meeting with honey, one of their conditions is that when you file a deed restriction for any future development of the property to not exceed the building or any kind of characteristics of the building that's already there. To my knowledge, it was a negotiation that I'm assuming has been recorded already or is going to be recorded shortly. I was not a part of that process. Okay. Yeah, I was just speaking to the characteristics of any future redevelopment, which we don't have any plan right now. Okay. So the conditions that speak to noise hours of operation are related to the existing operation that's there or any proposal. That they talked about. The good the good neighbor agreement or the deed restriction. The good neighbor agreement. Okay. So in the U.S., the good neighbor agreement is a couple of years ago for the existing business. They were there, Kobe and the restaurant. Okay. But what, if any, of that changes? That's where the deed restriction comes in related to a potential re-use on the site and whatnot. Correct? Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I think that answers all my questions. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Okay, we have Councilman Flynn. You're up. Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to follow on because Councilwoman Ortega actually asked almost answer both of my questions. But the condition, the conditional support Scott or the applicant could answer from honey was basically predicated on the filing of this deed restriction. Is that correct? Were there any other conditions on Honey's support of this? No, that's my knowledge. It was the conditions outlined in the letter in the packet to be recorded in a deed restriction. Again, I'm not 100% sure where it is in the process, whether it's already been filed. Or will be done. But that was the condition and there were no others. That is what I was doing. Okay. And in the staff report, it said that is it. I'm sorry. Maybe you could answer was the owner does not intend to redevelop the property. Does the owner intend to rehabilitate the building? He already has. Okay. I haven't been up there since it was little Pilipinas broke my heart. I really did. If you bring back a little bit Pinas, I go to every day. But so the intent is to keep the building as it is. And this deed restriction would require preservation or would it require, if it were to be replaced or what? I'm going to ask you to come to the mike, because we're kind of having this side conversation here. So which one? So the deed restriction would require that if the building somehow were damaged, were were destroyed, had to be replaced, it would have to be replicated or the same character or the exterior. Same character, the setbacks, the height restrictions, the amount of residential units that would be allowed the, I guess, greenspace in there, the parking access, everything that is existing now would have to be replicated with any new building. The only reason right now that we're trying to get this rezoning is actually from another building of ours that had the same issue where it was used and was not the zoning did not match use. Right. And the building actually fell in on itself. And so that's when we realized we should probably go ahead and look at everything else. Because that up in the same neighborhood. It is. Yeah, I remember that. Yeah. So that's when we started evaluating all the other properties that would kind of fit this criteria and this was kind of the best fit. Thank you for any of your sound. Thank you. I want to thank you for for doing that. For going that extra measure. Excellent. Thank you, Mr. President. All right. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Espinosa. So I'm personally in sort of distress right now. So what is your role again with the project? I work for the property owner. But the property owner doesn't give you didn't give you any authority to speak on their behalf or you do. All I do. And they told me to be here. They're both out of the country right now. Never mind. Just got the confirmation. I was like, Yeah, yeah, yeah. Because there was some tense moments in the community conversation with the property owner leading up to this. And it's and I'm talking about things that aren't actually technically part of what we're supposed to be considering among our criteria. But it is fundamentally frustrating. And this sort of sounds like comment. Never mind. Okay. We'll we'll get you a comment. Thank you, sir. All right. Seeing no other questions public here for council Bill 26 is closed. Comments by members of council councilmen as one of them. So. So you you start to sort of started to see me sort of speaking to my sort of process or what have you. One of my frustrations in the zoning code, if you've been watching for any number of times over the last two and a half years since we adopted this new zoning code in 2010, it has had the provisions, just like the prior zoning code, to use incorporate waivers and conditions, which is customized zoning. You can modify any base zone district to accommodate certain things, but then we have these policies that are not law ordinances, laws, zoning code is law policies, not law. Those are rules. We can change them. We can deviate. But, you know, then all hell breaks loose if we don't follow our policy so we can amend our policy regardless of the thing I'm rambling about is when we rezoning the entire city, we re zoned it one size fits all. You know, we try to do the best we can, but we recognize that it is a huge area and it's got a lot of different things in our zoning code. Sort of tries to capture everything, but we recognize that there are differences. There are differences between Southeast Denver differences and Green Valley Ranch and Highland between South Broadway and Walsh Park or, you know, there's there's just a lot of variety, which is what's probably what's really great about the fabric of Denver. And in order to address concerns from one neighborhood to another, you could use waivers and conditions, or you can use any number of tools. But because of the impact, the lack of us willing to use our legal tools based on policy, yes, we've had to work with other tools that are essentially tacitly supported by our director of community planning development. I mean, Brad Buchanan has come to me and said, look, I, I prefer private party, third party agreements, developer agreements over codifying in zoning. The difference there is who enforces that when you codify it and zoning the city enforces that when you do it through a third party agreement that's between a neighborhood or whoever signs it versus the developer or whoever owns it. And so. But regardless. One thing that we we've seen repeatedly in northwest Denver, where we're experiencing sort of a rash of redevelopment pressures, gentrification and other issues, and some character altering new projects is when we have a rezoning that allows something that is very, very, very, very much by the book can be sort of, you know, if you're familiar with the Denver Fugly website, that is a that is a thing that's out there where you can go and you can see some of Denver's worst architecture. Those are used by right. Developments generally. And there is no constraint in or or or nothing in our zoning code that necessarily dictates esthetics or orientation to the degree that it, you know, should fenestration and what have you. So I'm rambling, but my point is, is that there is a a serious disconnect that we have as a community, work together on time and time again to bring forward tools, work with developers, because the reality is, is where the community is and the where the developer is are typically not as far apart as we might think. The developer, you know, but the the problem is, is the zoning code that one size fits all tool allows a whole bunch of other things that may not capture the community's desires or the developers desires. And so we have successfully used these third party agreements, these developer agreements to address those outliers and to bring both parties closer together and to an area where what would might be a contentious situation, not be a contentious situation. And so I've actually talked more than all of those presentations just in this thing, because what I was stressing about was all that the fact that we have all these balls that we have to juggle just to get everybody who's actually all rowing in the same direction in community, to sort of work around the fact that our zoning code actually would in fact allow something that was community disruptive and and potentially detrimental if we just went in a straight use by right situation. And there was good conversations between owner and community to address these concerns and to the to to my colleagues point, Councilwoman Ortega mentioned there was an October letter in here from a planning board hearing. So that's to hearing two public meetings before this one that where that had been discussed, but it had never been executed. And so that was what was concerning is that, you know, did we get to this point where everyone was in agreement, but we didn't have any written documents? And the problem is, again, that is not. Substantive to our decision making because our criteria remains the same, whether that third party agreement exists or not. But I can tell you that there are tools in the zoning code that could address these very same things. We just choose as a city, as a matter of policy that comes from the administration. To not do this. At that level where the city can enforce that. And so that is something that I wish would change. It could change. It should change. But until then, we have this thing. And so all that said, I want to thank you for and, your Honor, the person that you work for. I thank the city for sort of recognizing that it's there, but not and my my constituents and honey who aren't here because they actually support this measure for all coming to the table and agreeing on a way forward that works now and for the future. And and that is a lot of work that we've been doing time and time again in my district, sort of super normal. Hopefully, I've never overstepped my bounds, but I just I was in a bit of panic because I didn't feel like that had been executed. And the good faith, I didn't have any acknowledgment up until right now that the good faith of all that communication had had come to fruition. So I do feel relieved to know that development is going to exist in the way that it. It's already been moving forward. The community has assurances that things in the future would also be consistent with with the owners wishes and the community's wishes. And with that I will with all that rambling, I will be supporting this measure but having nothing to do with that and purely do with the criteria because it does in fact meet its criteria. And I should acknowledge that that this is our least intense. This is to X, right? This is our least intensive zone district designed specifically for incorporation in area, in neighborhoods, existing single family to unit fabric. So it is consistent with our adopted plans and all the criteria that we would normally meet with. And with that, I'll be supporting it. Thank you. All right. See no other comments. Madam Secretary. Raquel Espinosa. Hi. Flynn, I. Herndon. I Cashman. Hi. Can each new Ortega Sussman. Black clerk. All right. Mr. President. I please close voting in US results. 11 eyes. 11 eyes. Counsel Will 1266 has passed. Congratulations. All right, Councilwoman Kinch, will you please put Council Bill 1396 on the floor?

A bill for an ordinance relating to the Denver Zoning Code to establish new zone districts that implement the objectives of the adopted 2015 National Western Center Master Plan. Approves a text amendment to the Denver Zoning Code to establish four new zone districts referred to as Campus-National Western Center-Core (CMP-NWC-C), Campus-National Western Center-General (CMP-NWC-G), Campus-National Western Center-Flex (CMP-NWC-F) and Campus-National Western Center-Riverfront (CMP-NWC-R) in furtherance of implementation of the National Western Center Master Plan and Globeville and Elyria and Swansea Neighborhood Plans in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-30-19.

DenverCityCouncil_09092019_19-0752

I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results. 11 Eyes 11 eyes council bill 724 has passed. Councilman Herndon, please put Council Bill 752 on the floor. Yes, Madam President, I move that council bill series 2019 075 to be placed upon final consideration and to pass. It has been moved and seconded. The combined public hearing for Council Bill 752 and Council Bill 753 is open. Speakers may offer comments on either or both items after the conclusion of the public hearing. Council will vote separately on each. We have the staff report. Good evening. Councilmembers Brad Johnson, Senior City Planner with CPD. I'm here and excited to bring to you the Denver Zoning Code Text Amendment Number five, which would create four new campus National Western Center zoned districts and rezoning proposal 2019 AI 104, which would map the Zone District in a large portion of the area encompassed by the National Western Center Master Plan. This combined text and map amendment was initiated by CPD, but also in partnership with Mayor's Office in Western Sydney. So I'd like to just quickly, I'll do the rest of the presentation, but invite tigers to come say a few words quickly. Good evening remembers the council will take as Holloway executive director of the mayor's office National Western Center. Just really a couple of high notes. The National Assessment Team has worked hand in hand with community planning and development to bring this key and critical rezoning forward. As you know, this provides for a level of flexibility and allows us to activate the site to meet some of the key goals around supporting connectivity, the activations of of activities on the site, but then also the riverfront engagement. And so again, being relatively new into the position, we've got quite a few people from the team here that I'll obviously defer to and with Brad on some of the more specific questions, but we're really excited about moving this forward. Thanks. Yeah. Thank you. So just some housekeeping. Here we are in Council District nine. In the Elyria, Swansea City School neighborhood. So when we referred to the campus as a whole, we're generally referring to this area that's outlined in black here, so bounded by the South Platt Race Court, Brighton Boulevard and I-70, obviously with some pretty notable exceptions , particularly the Coliseum site. That area, of course, is bisected by the BNSF Railway. And that's generally synonymous with the National Western Center Master Plan area. The area we're here to talk to you about tonight is this area shown here, which is pretty much everything west of the BNSF rail tracks. And so that's generally synonymous with phases one and two of the campus construction we did. There are two notable gaps in this area that I want to point out. We did receive some questions, A, why wouldn't you rezone all of those properties? Right. One of them is fresh in your mind. Of course, the gap in the northern portion is is dry property currently. You know, there's ongoing litigation, no negotiations. Coordinated with that property. And so we thought at this time it made more sense to sort of not jeopardize or disrupt those those negotiations by rezoning the property at this time. If when that property comes into ownership of the city, of course, it'd be a good candidate for for this for these zone districts down to the south, a couple of other properties quickly. One, the largest piece is the McDonald Farms property that is currently in ownership of an industrial property owner, and they're operating their business there now. If we were to rezone their property at this time, they would become a non-conforming group, non-conforming use, and that the zoned districts that we're proposing are more restrictive than the industrial be that governs those sites right now. There also is a small sliver of BNSF Railway. They're probably too small to develop anything on, but it is also BNSF Railway property that would not be resolved at this time. So we're definitely here to talk about the zoning tonight. But I just want to show this slide as as a reminder of some of the big moves. Associated with construction of phases one and two and. We obviously talked about rail consolidation and relocation today. Wastewater pipes, major wastewater pipes along the river front buried. This allows an ability to establish a new street work in Betty Cram and National Western Drive, connecting in with the existing roadways. New facilities constructed, some of them as long as 1100 feet in length. So major, major construction of new buildings and event event venues bridges to Globeville to the West. An RTD rail stop soon on its way, and a pedestrian bridge that will get you from the campus over to that rail platform and vice versa. And then finally, construction of a riverfront open space community with the movement of those rail lines and the sewer mains. This is a look at the National Western Synod process as a whole, going back, starting with the master plan and I know there was a lot of work before then, but this is only how much I could fit on the on the slide and make it still legible. So starting with 2015, with the master plan and bringing us to today where we're getting close to our deadline via the framework agreement for having the zoning in place, particularly for the CSU properties on the site. So you see that little connection between the framework agreement and a few weeks from now, October one, 2019. The zoning work is outlined there in green and you see that sort of in place within the overall larger timeline of the project. So this zooms in on the zoning work itself as well as the design standards and guidelines work that's been conducted and developing that document. So we've been at this for a little over a year, lots of meetings with Citizen Advisory Committee along the way. We published a zoning strategy back in January, which is a pretty comprehensive sort of preview of where the zoning was going and but a little bit more accessible in the way that it was written. The idea is that someone would have an early opportunity to weigh in on the zoning proposals before it gets into the sort of legalese, red line language that you have before you today. Obviously, it's been a busy summer as we've made our way to this adoption hearing. So starting with the text amendment, I just want a couple hit on a couple of framework ideas behind the zoning. One is the streets are important in the way that development is associated with streets. And the way that they contribute to public space is critical. And it's no. Most critical on those portions of the street network that are connecting Globeville through the campus over eventually to Elyria, Swansea, as you see those portions of the Street Network outlined in green. Secondly, the river is to be respected. That means being careful about what uses we're allowing in close proximity to the river, ensuring that if buildings are built near the river, that they're set back sufficiently to maintain opportunities for circulation and things of that nature. And where a building is also built along the river that it actually engages the river, that means real architecture along the wall, not a blank wall up against the river, but transparency. Windows. Actual articulation. So to get out those framework ideas, what we're proposing in the text amendment is for new campus national Western Center Zone Districts and the Corps General Flex and riverfront. And you see those mapped here. This is the map that you'll see in your packet. It looks a little bit different than the one that I like to show. And the reason is that for the packet we have to map the new zone districts over existing conditions. But if you look at these maps, what's important is that they show the new street network that's going to be established out here. And that was a big influence of the zone districts that are before you so quickly walked through these first to start with campus national western center core. This is Main Street in phases one and two of the National Western Center. And so the zoning reflects that objective. You'll see many of the requirements that you would see in a main street zone district elsewhere in town. So transparency requirements, having buildings lined along the street. Active use requirements and prohibition of parking in close proximity to the street. So it's all about creating a walkable, pedestrian oriented corridor. There. Moving to the northeast, you have the campus nationalist from Center General District. That's an area that's going to accommodate some of those very largest facilities, like the one I mentioned, and that is close to 1100 feet long. And the livestock center, as well as the equestrian center in the plaza, that sort of runs through the middle of those two projects. Street Edge characters still important in there, and that it has frontage this area has frontage on National Western Drive, but more flexibility certainly with respect to land use, considering the type of activities that will courrier campus National Western Center flex. This is a zone district designed to accommodate those more support and service oriented uses that are going to be necessary to ensure that the campus can operate smoothly and efficiently in this area, you're going to see more sort of outdoor focused activities. And by that I mean the stockyards, for example, is in this one district, primarily outdoor activity space, the maintenance and operation facilities, storage, storage areas and things of that nature that sort of support the core of the campus. And then lastly, a campus National Western Center riverfront. This is synonymous with the areas that are planned to be open space amenities both for the campus and the neighborhood. The concept and intent behind this zone district is that it is intended to maintain this area as an open space community. It does allow limited development, but the idea behind is that any buildings that would be built there would be visually subordinate to the open space itself. So you see height limits and lot coverages are excuse me, building coverages and things of that nature. Science. I'll show you a map in a minute. Some of you may remember in 2015 there was a campus National Western Center Zone district, an initial one mapped in some areas of the what's referred to as the triangle. So east of the BNSF Railway. What we did for sign regulations was we borrowed the sign regulations from that original campus National Western Center district and apply them to these new zone districts. However, we also, with this tax amendment, establish a mechanism by which an applicant in this case probably a NewCo and or the authority, would prepare a district sign plan that would allow flexibility above and beyond what's allowed in those baseline sign requirements in the zoning, provided that they prepare a district sign plan in that district. Same plan as approved by the Planning Board. Parking. We got some questions about this, I. I heard on the one hand. Why don't you do some parking minimums? There's not maybe not enough parking. And I heard on the other end of the spectrum, maybe we should have parking maximums. There might be too much. The answer to those questions is kind of it's complicated. I'll give you the short answer. And it's that the demand for parking at the National Western Center is changing every single day. It's changing week to week and it's changing event to event. So we explore the idea of having parking minimums and maximums when we haven't eventually looked at the numbers and landed on the idea of having neither maximums or minimums. Part of what helps out with that is that the National Western Center Authority will be in place. They will be the single entity managing parking on the site. And so this this approach allows them the ultimate flexibility really to manage parking on the site, as well as access to the site and parking opportunities potentially off site. So, you know, we'll get into the map amendment and you'll start to see some of the slides you are used to seeing. Um, so the mapping memo, as I mentioned, would map these four new zone districts. It should mention that the billboard overlay you oh two, as it's called, is mapped on these properties today. And we would retain that as as it is in place now. So quickly through the existing context. Existing zoning on the site is via industrial light IP, which is that heavy industrial and industrial mixed use five storey. Historic structures. There is, of course, the Armory Administration building, very handsome building here that will ultimately become the centerpiece for the the campus in the surroundings, of course, the 1909 stadium arena across the tracks over in the triangle area. There are currently no design standards and guidelines our design review. But this text amendment would enable design review for these districts and we have prepared in coordination with new code design systems and guidelines those that document is drafted and is available for review and has been for for some time. That design review process would be administered by CPD administratively and it is important to consider the zoning. In light of the design standards and guidelines. Another tool for ensuring high quality design and character. Existing land is out there on the side. It's probably changing quite a bit. There's vacant properties, there's parking, there's office and retail and the livestock exchange building, of course, and there's some industrial uses still operating there. Surroundings are generally industrial, more parking and then some of the entertainment and cultural uses associated with existing facilities that accommodate the structure. Building foreman skills generally this kind of low slung industrial utilitarian buildings, as you see in the picture in the top. There are some exceptions. I mentioned the livestock exchange building, quite a jewel there on the campus, shown in the picture in the middle. This is a rezoning. So I just want to take a minute as a reminder that the rezoning doesn't allow or permit any specific development as projects come through. Under this zoning, they will still have to go through the SDP site development plan review process and be any number of items looked at during that process. Freight rail and potential safety issues related to that is one of those considerations that may be relevant out here. And of course, traffic impacts and. Roadway infrastructure and things of that nature will be looked at as well as projects come through. These are the three credit criteria that we consider for a legislative map amendment like this and a text limit. So I'll go through those now. First is consistency with adopted plans. These are the five plans that. Correspond to this area. Starting with Play 2040. We found the rezoning to be consistent with it and that it will create or allow for the creation of a vibrant mixed use center and a people oriented place and will advance cultural tourism goals. The neighborhood context is urban center. Again, we found it consistent with this item in that there is rezoning will facilitate a significant employment area that will result in good street activation and connectivity. And of course with the pending rail line coming online will be served with high capacity transit. The future place type is a regional center and supports a high mix of uses. The rezoning would result in structures that are generally corresponding and framing those public spaces that there along and the heights that we're allowing in. All but that riverfront district I showed you are up to 150 feet in the river riverfront district. We're talking 40 feet max. So we think that's in keeping with the goal for taller heights in this place type. The street types. When Blueprint Denver assign the street types to this area, they assigned it to the existing roadway network, which makes sense from their perspective. Now, as we look at the campus, we have to consider also the Future Street Network, right. So there were two two streets. Well, two street types, I guess. First, Franklin Street, a suburb of it there, was identified as an industrial connector, which allows for kind of flexible placement of buildings and zoning, of zoning that would allow those types of building placements. So in the campus National Western Center Flex, we're certainly in line with the objectives of an industrial collector. I mean, look at Race Court and 46 Avenue identified as a mixed use collector. I think we're somewhat consistent with that. We meet the intent of an east west street that is a mixed use collector, but it doesn't happen as much on those streets as it does on the new streets that are going to be constructed with the campus. And that's very crim and nationalist from drive north. Growth area strategy is a regional center. So this is an area that's to accommodate lots of employment, growth and housing in this phase. Employment growth obviously is a big part of that. Walking through the plans. The Globeville neighborhood plan doesn't cover this area, but comes right up next to it. Along the river, it was very clear about objectives for connecting from Globeville to, uh, to the National Western Center and eventually over to Elyria. Swansea. Certainly the zoning will help to allow for those connections to be made. So we found that to be consistent as well. We found the result to be consistent with Illyria Swansea Neighborhood Plan. Its land use concept for the site is entertainment, cultural and exhibition. It calls for promoting heritage tourism, certainly in line with that says to establish maximum building heights to support arts scuse me, to accommodate redevelopment of the nationalist center. And then again, you hear this again. Improved neighborhood access and connectivity to the river. And lastly, the National Western Center Master Plan. I mean, this is our our guide for the campus. This sets the vision and objectives for the campus. And I think this rezoning is is one small step in achieving all of these objectives. I'll just point out to that are a little bit more direct in that the zoning will support engagement of the river and nature by the community as well as integration. Again, looking back to that original diagram I showed you that prioritizes those connections that go from Globeville through the campus. Elyria. Swansea. Further, the rezoning would result in uniformity of district regulations and would further the public health, safety and welfare of the community. So with that concluding presentation, we recommend approval of Text Amendment Number five and Rezoning Proposal 2019 i104. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Brad. We have five individuals signed up to speak this evening. If I could have folks leave that front bench open. And if I could remind folks to make sure and state your name and city of residence. We have Lance Nadin, Paul Andrews, Jocelyn Hill, Brad Buchanan and and Elizabeth. Mr. Nadin. Go ahead. Thank you. Members of council, for being here tonight and those in the audience. I'm sure everybody is either giving up Bernie or the opening game of the Broncos. So that speaks to your passion. Thankfully, I only get to speak 3 minutes, but I can't see. You will have to see the clock as as is my. I live a born in Denver, lived here my whole life. I'm currently residing in Greenwood Village. I'm a managing managing member of 4700 Brighton Boulevard, which is the future home of the Denver Police Museum, which I'm very, quite passionate about. My father died in the line of duty in 1971, so that's extremely important thing to me. Following the progress of the National Western complex over the last many years, it's very exciting opportunity for for not only the immediate business community around the national Western, but just the city as a whole. I don't think we clearly understand and I don't think I did until recently, the global impact that that that the national western complex will have in conjunction with the associated development in Rhino and down Brighton Boulevard. Its proportions is it's monumental, it's larger than than really I think any of us realized through its completion and it will have a global impact with the changes in our society really over the last. And you know, by the way, I for one think good changes with how we we we train, interact, recognize deficiencies of the past and move forward. Being more theoretically of a political national political climate wouldn't indicate that at all. But things like the MeToo movement, as a one good example, I think that that we can't not ignore that that doesn't that doesn't impact development. We have a lot at stake here and smart, responsible, community oriented outreach development. And that's really what the National the Police Museum stands for. It's really outreach, outreach, how to align the community around it with the police museum. And that is in line with, I think, in my opinion, that all development should happen. I'm a big obviously a big supporter of the National Western redevelopment and all that it has to offer. But I don't want you as leaders of the community who have been so great in support of that initiative with the mayor, the current council and previous council members. I don't want it to get lost in how great this is in this vote tonight of 7 to 6 was absolutely stunning to me. On one side, it shows that democracy is in good hands. In Denver, Colorado, when you have something as powerful as the national western complex, come down to a 76 vote, which I, I can see both sides, by the way. I'm not taking one one opinion on the other. But but it just, again, emphasizes that things aren't just a given, that they're going to happen, but they should happen and they should happen the right way. And a community development responsible type way that leads this development project of enormous magnitude to be all that it can be, both to the world, the state and our local community. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Paul Andrews. Thank you. Madam President. Thank you. Members of council. I'm Paul Andrews, the president and CEO of the National Western Stock Show. We reside at 4655 Humboldt Street in Denver. As you know, the Western Stock Show Association is one of three equity partners in the nation of Western Center campus. We are on track to meet our financial obligations to this project. Those commitments include $50 million in cash committed to the project and $75 million in land value, which is land the stock show acquired over the last 100 years. We paid our first 15 million last November and next May we will deposit 35 million to complete our cash commitment. We're also planning to build our own building on campus called the Legacy Building. We will buy the land and build the building all with private funds and expect completion in June of 2023. The rezoning under consideration tonight is a critical part of the overall master plan that the Council adopted in 2015 and the voters overwhelmingly passed in November of 2015 as ballot measure to see. In January 2020, we will be hosting 114th National Western Stock Show. Early entries are strong, with more than 40 states already committed to attend an anticipated economic impact to the Denver metro area this year of more than 115 million from January 11th to the 26th. I also want to share with you that we have started a new Denver specific college scholarship program called the National Western Denver Scholarship Program . And we're looking forward to the continued involvement with the neighborhoods and communities surrounding the nation of Western Center as we choose future students. The nation, western stocks. You and our partners. Thank you for all your support of the National Western Stock Show and the Nation Western Center Project. And we ask for your support in the rezoning tonight. Thank you. Up next, we have Jocelyn Hill. Thank you, Madam President, and members of Council. I am Jocelyn Hill. I am Senior Director of Sustainability and Denver Programs for the Colorado State University System. Our office is located at 475 17th Street in Denver, and I also live in Denver as one of the partners in the National Western Center redevelopment. Over the next three years, CSC will build three buildings focused on the themes of water, food, animal and human health and sustainability. These facilities will have both a local and global focus, attracting visitors to Denver from around the world, showcasing both the heritage and innovation of our city and state with an investment of $200 million. We will create spaces that host outreach and education to K-12 students and families through activities like field trips, camps and hands on education programs. We will support research on the challenges we face, both locally and globally, as well as linking youth to the scientists and policymakers tackling those challenges. We will support training and professional development to introduce Denver residents and visitors to new career and educational paths. Our Denver Extension Office will have a presence offering programs and activities that are responsive to the requests and needs of residents of the city and county of Denver, particularly our neighboring communities. All of this work will build upon. See us use existing collaborations with the schools and organizations that serve the surrounding neighborhoods. We have not been waiting for buildings over the last six years. CSU has built relationships and offered programs that range from an annual community animal health clinic to youth engagement activities to ongoing programs in equine assisted therapy currently offered at the existing stock show complex. In addition, CSU will continue to collaborate with our existing National Western Center partners the Authority, the Western Stock Show Association, the Denver Museum of Nature and Science History, Colorado, Denver Water, and the City and County of Denver to create a platform for learning, arts, culture and convening that can also be used by new partners who join us as the National Western Center evolves. This rezoning is the next step toward meeting our goals of opening all of CSU's facilities in 2022 so that we can offer new programs and host existing programs and a new home. Tonight, I'm here to ask for your support of the rezoning so we can meet that goal, begin this new chapter of the National Western Center, and achieve CSU's goals of enhancing education and outreach in Denver. I would like to thank Community Planning and Development and the Council for their continuing work on the National Western Center and support of the project. Thank you and I will be available to answer questions. Thank you, Brad Buchanan and then analysts with. Thank you. Madam President, members of city council and Brad Buchanan, I'm the CEO with the National Western Center Authority. For those of you not familiar, the mayors of the National Western Center will design and build and have been standing in the gap for the authority for a number of years. The authority was formed last year and I moved to this post last October and were charged with operating programing filling, activating the campus over the next hundred years. I will not be doing it for a hundred years, but for years to come, I hope the the vision and mission for the National Western Center. I just want to quickly touch on those to be the global destination for agricultural heritage and innovation, to convene the world International Western Center to lead, inspire, create, educate, entertain in pursuit of global food solutions. What I think is most important about this next important step of the rezoning is that we've talked about the three partners tonight . I want to talk about the fourth partner. The communities around this project that that were situated within Globeville or Swansea and in the greater community of Denver constituents, even larger community of the urban and rural place that we're trying to connect. These are issues that are before us both and are relevant to our city and our citizens around food justice and food equity issues, but also around saving the planet and talking about global food production, soil health and other regenerative agricultural needs that are contributing to to climate change. There's there's a lot at stake. This is an important next step. You're going to start to hear a lot more from the programing efforts as they come to life here over the next number of years. This is not a typical urban development. It's a it's a once a one of a kind project. And so we're having to recreate new from scratch out of whole cloth at every step of the way. Thus customize zone districts here tonight before you that we think are relevant and important and ask and answer important questions that are important to our city and to the region, to and to the planet. So I'm here to answer any questions, if you have any, and appreciate your support. Thank you. Thank you. Our last speaker is an Elizabeth. Thank you, Madam President. Members of the Council for the opportunity to address this. I would like to speak strongly in favor of these zoning changes, although I wouldn't say that they're being made from scratch or cut from raw cloth. I'm here to bear witness to the fact that there were long and detailed conversations to create the original New Zone Zoning District for the National Western Center that these are also continuing to be accountable for, which is why I support these, because I think it will support the business plan going forward. We do need to be vigilant with some of the flexibilities. One example allowing flexibility by goes above and beyond the baseline sign requirements. I do trust that part of what the awareness is going forward is that the baselines were developed in the original conversations of the larger district. I don't know all this the pre the preceding zoning district that had to do with the the constituency quality of life so that these the signage has the history of behind this has some very good conversation about what is the noise, what is the signage, light controls, what is the environment. And I really have great confidence that the people that are involved in this zoning conversation now do understand that. And the council as a whole, I think, can be unified in paying attention to the project to carry forward in the design with those flexibilities. And it's an ongoing conversation just as there was, just as there has been in many facets. Of. The development, the National Western Center. And as a member of the National Western Center Citizens Advisory Committee, that has been embedded from the beginning, although I'll be moving to a more emeritus position here, I do want to say that this zoning conversation, just like the conversations about the consolidation of the railroads, has been an ongoing, ongoing conversation , broad and deep. With due respect to the council member that said it was the railroad consolidation conversation was limited to the CSG conversations. If you would please when you have time reference the various wants your neighborhood planned that was adopted in 2015. You'll find 21 references to conversations about the railroad. You'll find historically that one of the RE connectivity pushes access to the density of jobs in the neighborhoods. Has to do with remedying the disconnect tivity that's happened with the railroad as historically. So thank you for passing that measure. I appreciate it. And I really hope that I have an opportunity to talk with each of you over time around the prolonged process of what the National Western Center emergence has been. Because I'm not a grassroots person. I'm a I'm an Aspen roots person. Those those those roots are interwoven. They're not individual blades. And I hope that we can get a greater understanding of what this tremendous project is because it will break silos. Think time is out. Can I have you restate your city of residents? Please tour. Globeville, the Near East 45, East 51st and Washington and I have lived at 47th and Brighton in the area as well. So thank you. All right. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on both Council Bill 752 and Council Bill 753. Councilwoman CdeBaca. Can you hear me? There you go. So thank you to everyone who's worked on making sure that we clean up this area and rezone out of the industrial uses that have really polluted this area for a long time. Activating the river is also a noble cause. We have recognized that this has been a very dirty river for a long time, and my hope is that this opens up the conversation to make sure we clean it up. I'm not super surprised that there aren't a lot of residents here testifying in support or against this. I believe we've displaced most of them. Make no mistake this for my colleagues, this is a project that is not for the neighborhoods. And I think it's become more and more clear over time. And while there have been people in the in the audience who spoke to the long and arduous process that residents were involved in, I'm sure you could knock any door in the closest neighborhood and find that people do not feel like they're connected, especially those who we've displaced through eminent domain abuse and are actually going to use their properties for attractions in this event center. I do want us to recognize that these decisions have strategically painted a narrative that is misleading. When we look at the map, and I don't know if we can go back to either the current zoning or the second map that showed where houses are. Councilman. It's the second. Portion of the public hearing that are questions. Do you have a question? Yeah. All right. Thank you. So I'll get to the question, but I'm I'm making a statement right now. So we've painted a narrative about this project that it is connecting the neighborhood to the river. And while we are activating the river, if you look at the bottom right hand corner of this map where the yellow is, that is those are the closest residences that exist. The diagonal line through the middle of of this image is the BNSF railroads. And that is where we're consolidating the squiggly line along the river to be in the future. And so what we've essentially done here is we have in the built form, this project has turned its back against community and we are talking about connectivity, but we don't necessarily have paid for linkages to community within these projects. And so while I support the rezoning because it takes us out of heavy industrial use and into something different, I do want to know if there are any guarantees that there will be funding for connections to community if we're rezoning under the auspices of connecting community to the river. So some of that's probably a good question for newcomers, since they are more focused on on the development. I think if I think I understand what you're saying is is talking about connect connectivity from malarious mines here in the yellow area that you see there, that is going to be determined in the development of the triangle. As you probably know, if you look at the master plan, there's a very clear diagrams that indicate that a roadway will be established and that an underpass underneath that railway that you mentioned that links up to Betty Crown, the sort of centerpiece of phases one into would be established. So under when we talk about these plans or this rezoning being consistent with current plans and we recognize that the new comprehensive plans have equity and healthy communities all baked in, does CPD have any indicators of equity that they look to when they're determining whether or not a reason is in fact providing tools for equity? Yeah well I think that would Denver Blueprint says or Blueprint Denver says is that rezonings of this type of scale would be evaluated for their equity impacts and things of that nature. Of course, this rezoning was well along the way before Blueprint Denver was adopted, so that's why you don't see some of that analysis here, I think . And there are other people from CPD here, I think they could speak to this, but that sort of criteria and the ability to to examine rezonings and different scales of rezonings for equity is sort of under development, and I think you'll be seeing that soon with respect to this one, as I said, sort of like in the pipeline already. So that's why you don't see that specific analysis here. So it may be consistent in built form with what the plans say, but there are no indicators that show it's consistent with equity goals in the current plan. Not that we have in an analysis here. I mean, we'll just say that the a big part of equity, as it's stated in Blueprint in Denver is of course, a lot of that is about access, as you mentioned, the connectivity and access to open space and things like that. So I think those are things that the zoning directly speaks to. There are a lot of other things going on with the National Assessment Center beyond this rezoning that also speak to equity that I won't try to speak to. But of course there are many people here that could. So CPD has no criteria or checkbox to make sure that plans embed equity. Not for this rezoning. Thank you. Good, Councilwoman. Okay. Thank you, Councilman Sandoval. Yeah. So I have a question about, um, Councilman CdeBaca comment about displacement. I'm very familiar with this site. I've been. I worked in Judy's office since 2015. Does anybody know exactly how many people we have displaced? Because I thought we did eminent domain on only four or five homes. So can someone speak to that from the National Western Center or someone? I don't think you can, Brad, but can somebody answer that question? And also if it's possible to talk about it in the pre eminent domain process because they don't all make it there. But I just want to know how many places I know the question I'm looking for. I got someone. Thank you for that question. Brad Dodson, deputy director for the Mayor's Office of Best Western Center. I understand from the team we have acquired 38 properties as part as part of the campus, and ten of those are residential properties. Okay. And when they were with the ten residential properties, it went through the process where it was eminent domain and a market value study was done and they could have come back and rebutted that, just like with every eminent domain process. Is that correct? That's correct. And then did any of them end up in litigation or did all of them settle with the amount that you all negotiated? None of them ended up in litigation. They were all settled. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Ortega. Pratt. You might be the best person to answer this question. Yes, this. Brad. Sorry. What? What type of structures would need 250 feet heights on the campus? I would refer. To I would defer to Eric Anderson, our design. Manager, to come in. And answer that specific question. Eric. Can I can I clarify? It's 100. 5150. Okay. I was looking at something that said 250 and I just wanted to clarify that. So thank you for that. Eric Anderson from Centennial. I'm the design manager. For the mayor's office of the National. Western Center. Again. As others have mentioned, this project is truly unique, particularly in the types of buildings that we are building. Although some of. Them are one story, they may be. Much taller than an. Average building because of the uses. And the events that will have to happen here. Things like arenas and barns need. Lots of space. And lots of clearances to make those work. So to. Be able to allow for those. Types of structures that 150 feet has. Been set to be able to allow that. Okay. And any rezoning beyond this particular area. So east of the railroad tracks, south of I-70. Those will come at some future time. That's correct. Okay. I also had a question about the 48th Avenue connection from Elyria to the site. This this this campus has always sort of had a Brighton Boulevard facing entrances, and it will now have a west facing entrance towards the river. And it wasn't until I don't know, I would say in the last couple of months that I learned that the connectivity in Phase one doesn't go all the way to Brighton Boulevard. And and so I share that concern and I've expressed that to the National Western staff. I know that's being proposed as part of what is anticipated with a private partner coming to the table to help, you know, do the build out of the next buildings, the next phases of the campus that are not funded with this first phase. And I guess I'm in comments now, so I shouldn't I should stop, but I just want to share that that's a concern as well. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Hines. Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem. I'm a little concerned that there was nothing about equity. I think I'm a little concerned because that's you know, one of the things that we're supposed to do is measure things today, right? We're not supposed to come to any sort of conclusion before today. And as I look at comp plan 2040. Which we're supposed to use as a as a guiding document. It talks about equity. It talks about equity multiple times, actually equitable, affordable and inclusive. It talks about why measure equity. And then also in Blueprint, the number one of the six vision elements is equitable, affordable. Inclusive. So. I'm kind of at a loss because I didn't do as much research on Blueprint or or for this particular item, because I just assume that you met all the goals and that's that's my, I guess, penalty for not being on LUDI and following LUDI closer. I want to give you another chance to like maybe you've come up with something between counseling and setbacks questions. And now that it's really you don't have anything on equity other than eminent domain on 22 houses which not exactly equity and and that you haven't considered equity at all that that's really concerning to me because that is a core tenant on both blueprint and component. 2040. So do you are you sure you're not considering equity at all. For a I shouldn't say we didn't consider equity. What I mean by that is we didn't do an analysis in the staff report because of the timing of adoption of blueprint number and so on. Part of the equity goals that you mentioned related to uh, providing housing opportunity. I want to point out one major difference here between the zoning that we're proposing in this area and what's there today. There's industrial light, and industrial heavy zoning does not allow housing. Right now, the zoning that we're proposing for the site in this portion of the site will open up the site to the potential for housing. That's obviously not in the program and funded portion of phase one and two. But from a zoning perspective, it certainly opens up that opportunity. And I think that's an important thing to note. In addition to the things that we mentioned about access, uh, access to open space, access to neighborhood and so on. Okay. Hi, I'm Sarah Showalter, citywide planning manager for CPD. And I really appreciate the questions that both yourself and Councilman CdeBaca have asked tonight, because you're right on equity. The reason there's a reason why it shows up first in the comprehensive plan is the first vision element, because we heard strongly from the community when we were working on Denver. Right. That of all the vision elements, people really felt that was the one that we needed to commit the most to and double down on if we want Denver to. So be the city that's so rich and inclusive that it is today. So I appreciate you asking these questions and a couple of things I want to clarify. I think first, related to this particular rezoning, there are a lot of components that Brad's hit on that are about advancing equity goals. It is very much part of the plans that were adopted by City Council before Comprehensive Plan 2040 and before Blueprint Denver. So those those more areas specific plans like the neighborhood plan and the National Western Center Master Plan don't have as much as some of our future plans may about equity, but they still reflect a lot of the same values and goals about wanting to create something here that responds to what the community wants and adds amenities for the community, bringing things in that this community hasn't had in the past. Open space is a really big one. So I do want to emphasize it's not the equity is not part of this rezoning or part of the philosophy. It's very much part of what we're trying to accomplish with the rezoning. However, Brad's correct that this process, which is I don't know how long exactly it's been, but it's been very long. A lot of how we're thinking about how we can more formally integrate equity analysis into large rezonings like this starts at the very beginning of the process. It's about the scope of the whole analysis that you would do around what are the things that we might be considering that we wouldn't have otherwise if we don't have equity at the forefront? And like Brad mentioned, we're working on how to change some of our processes, including large scale rezonings and amendments to the zoning code, to do a more formal analysis and more recognition of that key goal. And so the great news is that that will very much influence the triangle component that still is not part of this project, but will be in the future and will go through a rezoning. We should have that process in place and I am really hopeful you'll see a much more kind of formal, like Brad was saying, integrated databases, you know, blueprint. Denver actually has three equity concepts. One of those is about access to opportunity. One is about vulnerability to displacement, and one is about housing diversity and jobs diversity. And in areas like this, we're working on something geographic specific. We plan to look at how an area of scoring in each of those three equity buckets and use those scores and where there's challenges to influence the outcomes. So that will be very much part of what we get to do with phase two around the triangle. And that's even more important because that's the portion of the campus that's closest to the neighborhood and where that can be the most opportunity for connections, as Councilman CdeBaca brought up, but where there's also the most impact to this to the surrounding community. And even more important, to make sure we have more of that equity analysis figured out and know how to influence the decisions that are being made based on that. So I hope that provides a little more background kind of where we're headed and what you all will see coming before you in the future when it's not a rezoning like this, where the majority of the work had already been done at the time those those plans were adopted. But I also want to reiterate, again, feel very confident. These are just like you said, it's part of your criteria. Like one of the biggest ones is are these consistent with our adopted plans? And we feel really, really strong that both the MAP amendment and the tax amendment, especially because they're advancing the neighborhood plan in the master plan, are advancing some key goals around how do we improve equity and access in this area. And I hope we can do even more robust analysis and conversation when we get to the triangle component. Can you or somewhat not necessarily because you didn't give the presentation, but would can we go back to the the slide that talks about the plans you use as metrics, the guides. Oh, yeah. It's very. You know, it's at the very beginning. This one concerns consistency with the adopted plan. So comp plan 2040 Blueprint Denver 2019 are two of the five plans and and that makes sense because city council actually right before we took office approved both plan 2040 and Blueprint 2019 and that was before today. So it makes sense that we're comparing to current plan 2040. I just I just wanted to make sure that it was on your list. So thank you for for having it on the list. I'm a little concerned about just trust us because, you know, eminent domain doesn't really share suggests to me that there's been a commitment to , you know, making sure that the neighborhood people can age in place and people can have access to. So and Denver has had an unfortunate past of not developing in an equitable way. So I'm a little concerned. I really like the the I like the idea. I mean, you know, the National Western Project I really like I'm not certain that I really like just trust us or your answer before of we didn't consider equity when there are two of the plans that that's the number one issue or excuse me the number one criteria. So thank you for your time. And thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Ortega. Yeah, I just have one last question. And either Brad or Titus, if you could come up to the podium, I don't want this conversation to be left assuming nothing or no commitments have been made around addressing some equitable issues. So I would like you to speak to commitments that have been made around apprenticeships and hiring goals that will be part of the ongoing construction, the next phase of of building out national western. Talk a little bit about the commitment that was made to the Community Investment Fund, community benefits that are in discussion stages with the community right now. I think it's important to just not presume that those things have been completely left off the table because they have been very much part of the meetings with the community and commitments that have been made by National Western Center. So sure, you can take us all away. And I think that also goes to the commitments that are made by the partners as well. I think we heard about what CSU and the stock show, but also what the authority plans to do. You know, I think one point of just a comment and clarification on I think what I'm hearing tonight is not necessarily that the plans that are moving forward did not consider equity, but where are we consistent with? And so I just think that we need to be a little bit clear on as those plans were developed, they got to the zoning, what components are still consistent with the equity platform that we are pushing forward in our neighborhood plans and through the comp plan. And we'll have to come back to that that conversation at some point so that we can, I think, settle up on that. So to the question at hand, yes. So, you know, the zoning side is the play space. That's the sort of the physical, the the mapping of. And yes, connectivity is part of that. And duly noted that the team continues to work on trying to find out additional ways to to make sure that connectivity to and from the adjacent neighborhoods is at the appropriate scale so that we're not having as many people coming to events that are accessing the location via the roadway network that are not the best for that type of travel within the neighborhoods. And so it's a balance and I know we've been looking at that and including with Betty Cram and future phases of how to make sure we're connecting better to the east while we're adding additional connections to the West. And the connections on the campus are complicated. It doesn't answer the question around equity, but because of a lot of the utilities that are on the site, the river separating it, the infrastructure and the clearances that are required often will impact both sides of the roadway. So we're very sensitive of providing enough access, but also not having so many transportation facilities that it limits the use and usability of the site. So fast forwarding into what the commitments are. So the National Western team was one of the first in the city to really push forward in an equity conversation around workforce. And so the horizontal integrated contract was really the first steps for the city and a workforce conversation. And since then we've moved forward into exactly what. You were mentioning requirements around apprentice apprenticeships within the construction phase. And so what we're looking at for our upcoming procurements is adding in that language that has been presented in other major projects in the city with the lead of Dito's Workforce Services and CBO on the small business front. And so there are specific requirements on the construction side. And yes, there is a map that Dito had has created that does focus in on the the inverted EL, if you will. So the west side, north Denver and far northeast zip codes that are in the highest need and demand of of economic opportunity. And so we've partnered with work now as part of this. And Nucor was one of the first sponsors, our first entities to help fund the Work Now program, who has been doing some really good work around training and getting opportunities for individuals. One of the first things that I'm looking at is to make sure that we're focused in on the right things so that those access to opportunities, which is one of the equity components that comes out of the master plan, starts to get the focus in on what we need to do here. I'm learning a lot of great things about what is happening that's positive. And as you and I have discussed, Councilmember Ortega taking that opportunity to look at other ways to make sure that we're increasing that those that are entering into the construction workforce. But I will say that's what's happening today. The other big focus for this campus is what happens in the future. And that's where Brad Buchanan and the authority and Paul in the stock show have been looking at, focused on opportunities where it's career opportunities within the operation and the maintenance of the campus that lasts more than the construction phase. It looks like I'm in the red. Thank you. Thank you so much. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman. And you don't have to follow that. Take us. So that's okay. You keep talking. Councilman Hines. Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem. And I'm sorry, I have a question about apprenticeships. So just as you continue conveniently sat down, I apologize. The you I think I heard you say that in future projects you'll add an apprenticeship component to the contracts. Is that is that what I heard? Yes. Okay. For the construction phases of the livestock center in the equestrian. So there are two last procurements that we have for the animals. And would you also agree to to have those apprenticeships programs be or have the requirement be that the apprenticeship programs are recognized by the Department of Labor? As in there, they're actually approved. Apprenticeship programs already. Are. Yes. Thank you. And so okay, so two other things. One question. If we vote no, that means that this just doesn't go forward and we get another chance to look at this. Is that correct? And that's not necessarily for you. This is a procedural question. We'll go ahead and turn that over to the city attorney, Kirsten Crawford. Or do we have somebody. Like we don't we're not killing? Does the the proposed zoning amendment. We're just saying not today. Kirsten Crawford Legislative Counsel I'm actually going to defer to Nate Lucero because he and talk about the TOS applications and then our code requirements with respect to Blackout and then I can fill in if there's anything else. Good evening, Services and City Attorney. So if you were to vote no on the text amendment and the map amendment, it would essentially send this back to the drawing board and you would be saying no to what's being proposed to you this evening. But we could theoretically even look at this again next week, right? I mean, that's I guess what I'm I'm trying to come up with a way to say, hey, let's give you a week or whatever to go back and, you know, to go back to CBD and say, Oh yeah, we do have equity things. We just didn't have the right people here tonight to address them. You see the nature of my thought process. Councilman Hines This application has been through a very long public process. It's been to the planning board, it's been through the committee, it's been through first reading. And now here they're they're here now for the public hearing. So there's been plenty of opportunity, both in the public and through the processes of the city for questions like this to be answered. And so how come you can't answer it? Well, tonight's your opportunity to vote it up or down. If you're not satisfied that the application doesn't meet the criteria, that's counsel's prerogative. Okay. And the last thing I would say is certainly when in presentations, I would ask that CPD include some of the components, including equity, that are core tenets of the plans that we're supposed to use to judge text amendments and zoning changes. Thank you, Madam President, for them. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Sandoval. Yes, thank you. Sara Showalter. Can I have a question for you? So when map and text amendments come forward and they're voted down, is there not a one year blackout period until the property can come forward for a rezoning? Yeah, good question. There's just discussing with the city attorney. Yes. So you're correct. If you vote no, if city council denies a rezoning, then the typical process is that there's 12 months correct before you can apply for the same zoned district. But as the city attorney was pointing out, this is a little different because that if you also voted no on the text amendment that's creating the zone district to which the application is for, and now that zone district wouldn't exist. So actually probably could come back sooner with that zone district and then ask to apply to it. It's a little different than a typical rezoning where the zoning district is already on the books. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. And I'm sorry, Ryan, I just I really do want to reiterate. I want to be clear on the message. All of the rezonings that come before you when we recommend approval, it's because we feel like we've met all of the criteria and all of the adopted plans. It's a it's a very comprehensive look. When you're thinking about a site like this, we're looking at are we consistent with all of the adopted plans, like in their totality, which, as you can imagine, is a lot to kind of digest when you have five plans like this one. But there are other rezonings that have come forward since Blueprint Denver Comprehensive Plan 2040 were adopted that are also in this. A little bit of an awkward to be frank you know timing thing here where we weren't starting to implement what does it really look like to have a large rezoning go through a more formal equity analysis until we knew the plans were adopted and now we're trying to catch up as fast as we can. But projects like this that have gone through the majority of the work prior to adoption of that new citywide vision are in that awkward phase. But I do really want to reiterate, it's not that we're saying, you know, trust us or that there wasn't any equity analysis done. And it's it's not part of the analysis. It very much is. I think we feel really confident that what this rezoning would do in terms of really changing a very heavy industrial area into a mixed use area that's going to provide a lot of amenities and realize the vision for a community in an area that has really struggled and had all the heavy industrial is very much part of a more equitable Denver and a more equitable future. So we we do feel strongly, even though we may not have the same level of rigor, we will in future large rezonings that it is definitely consistent with the adopt a comprehensive plan and blueprint number. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council and Council Bill 752 and or Council Bill 753. Councilwoman CdeBaca. Thank you. My comments are that I don't wish to stop the rezoning of this project. I think that we have to. I think tonight it would be a mistake not to advance this rezoning. But what I do want to make clear is that council has our eyes and fresh eyes with a new plan on equity and on CPD and on what we're expecting when we say something is consistent with the plan, because if it does not have that primary indicator that if we don't figure out indicators for equity, that we can literally check off, see and understand in. In a way that's going to be manifested not promised. Then they are not consistent with plans. And so for this situation, I do think that we have let the belt form turn its back on this community. But this community has been disconnected from this part of the city anyway. And so what I think this means for CPD and for a NewCo is that you have to pay special attention to what happens to the triangle and there has to be extra attention to undo the harm that may have been created by this zoning and not prioritizing equity. When we do the triangle. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Hines. Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem. So I recognize that you guys have been working on this for a long time. I recognize that you've had many presentations to a lot of people, including Rudy and Planning Board, and now we're here today. I also recognize that that there's some growing pains with with this started before Blueprint Income Plan were approved. We, too, are I mean, there are five of us who are new to council, and we also are having growing pains. And so, I mean, in some ways, I kind of feel like I'm caught with my pants down. They're not out. But, you know, it's a little bit of a concern. Just I would agree with Councilwoman CdeBaca. I think it doesn't make sense for this not to go forward, because I. I believe that that you've had a lot of vetting. I also don't want you to coast through city council and bebop through and think that we're just going to rubber stamp stuff. And I'm not trying to say that that's what's happened in the past. But I don't want I mean, I want to make an informed decision and I'm going to get beat up if. Tomorrow. I mean, you know, I vote for this and people are going to say, well, why didn't you consider equity? You're going to beat me up tomorrow. And and, you know, so I have a constituent who I know is going to email me either later tonight or tomorrow about equity. So. I just want to make sure that we're we're being thoughtful and I assume that you are, but it's not our job to assume. It's to make sure that it meets the criteria. So thank you so much for all the work that you've done. I'm not trying to not trying to beat you up. I'm just trying to make sure that I make an informed decision. So. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman. Woman Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem. I just wanted to. I speak in support of the application. And yes, there has been a lot of work that's gone into getting this project to this point. It's it's been around for several years now in the works, trying to get us to a place where we can, you know, get the site ready for new structures to be built. And, you know, I'm excited about the commitments that are made to the workforce, knowing that there are well in excess of a thousand people in the pipeline right now, many of whom are working on different projects across the metro area in the skilled trades that they chose to be trained in. And that's important, especially for people in these neighborhoods who can take advantage of these livable wage jobs and be able to have a solid career path and afford them the ability to stay in the neighborhood if they so choose, if they're a renter, or to potentially become a homeowner, if they're a current renter. And I think that is one very important component. It's not the only social contract, if you will, that is tied to this project. The commitment that's been made to the scholarships, I think is is really important as well. But this is a project that this city made a commitment to a number of years ago, that we want to see this done and see it done right. And, yes, the connectivity is critical. And part of the reason the Eastern connectivity is vital is because that is part of the linkage to the rail stop that's on the campus. And if people from the neighborhood can't get there because there are the right connections, that's a problem. And that's why you've heard me be noisy about making sure that we're addressing that as quickly as possible. So but I think this project is one that is is going to be one that we will all be very proud of. And we've got a great team of people who have been working very hard to make sure that all the pieces are in place and to work to address the community concerns. And does it mean we've gotten everything right? I think we've got a ways to go on some of these issues. But, you know. This phase will actually see some of those those social contracts be materialized. We're not having to wait for phase two through eight to to see those things happen. Yes. When the triangle gets built out and that comes back before us, we will see those very clearly spelled out as well. So I will be voting for this tonight. I think it's important for us to move it forward. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. And seen no one up in the queue. I will go ahead and make my comments. I appreciate the conversation and the questions of my colleagues. Equity is something that we talk a lot about in the city, but we don't yet have those tools that we can show our constituents and that we can even show council members without, you know, a shadow of a doubt that we have considered all components of equity. And I look forward to those documents that we can actually show how decisions are being made instead of, Yeah, we did it, it's a check mark, but really delve into it and having access around, you know, equity and access to opportunity, transportation and mobility. There's a whole laundry list of what we need to do. And so I appreciate the conversation. And, you know, what my my colleagues had mentioned. That being said, Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 752 place. Black. I see tobacco. Yes. Flynn. I heard it. Hi. Haines. Hi. Cashman. Ortega Yes. Hi. Sandoval. Hi. Sawyer, I. Torres, I. Madam President, I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results. 11 Eyes.

Recommendation to adopt resolution authorizing City Manager to execute a contract with Koppl Pipeline Services, Inc., of Montebello, CA, for furnishing and delivering pipeline stopper fittings and perform tapping and stopping services for natural gas pipelines greater than 12 inches in diameter without advertising for bids, in an annual amount not to exceed $400,000, for a period of two years, with the option to renew for two additional one-year periods, at the discretion of the City Manager. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_08092016_16-0727

Item 21 carries report from Long Beach Gas and Oil and Financial Management Recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the city manager to execute a contract with Coble. Pipeline Services for furnishing and delivering pipeline stopper fittings and perform tapping and stopping services for natural gas pipelines greater than 12 inches in diameter without advertising for bids in an annual amount not to exceed 400,000 citywide. There's a motion in a second. Okay. Is there any public comment seen on Councilmember Pearce? Yes. I just had one question. I'm not putting this out for a bit. How are we sure that this is, in fact, the only company that does this and forgive me for being the new guy. Just ask. Bob. Dylan, director of. Gas and Oil. Answer that. Thank you. Sure. These services are well known in the Southern California area. There are only four companies that perform this type of activity. As are aging pipelines. We replace more and more of them. There are fewer or fewer of these companies. One resides in the Bay Area. The other two do not perform the operations in the manner that the city approves of. So that leaves us with just. One company to perform those services. Okay. Thank you. There's a motion and a second. Please cast your votes. Councilmember Price. The motion carries.

A RESOLUTION related to the City’s Emergency Management Program; amending the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan Base Plan, Emergency Operations Plan, and All-Hazards Mitigation Plan as required by Seattle Municipal Code Section 10.02.050, RCW 38.52.077, and WAC 118-30-060.

SeattleCityCouncil_12072015_Res 31632

Agenda item 13. Resolution 31632. Related to the city's emergency management program and many the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan, Base Plan, Emergency Operations Plan and All Hazards Mitigation Plan as required by Seattle Municipal Code Section 10.0 2.050 hour S.W. 38.5 2.077 and WAC 118-30060. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted. Thank you, Councilmember Harrell. Okay. We go from busy day today. For Comcast to civil rights to emergency management. Yeah. Okay. So the City of Seattle's Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan simply is basically a suite of plans together that define our our strategies and our doctrine on how the city will prevent and prepare for and mitigate the impacts from disasters. This particular legislation is is necessary to meet our municipal code that requires that a comprehensive emergency management plan is kept current and that under the direction of the mayor promote proposed amendments. They are to be presented to the City Council for review and approval. So this local scene is required by state and has been negotiated and plan. And I'm very proud that we have one of the best experts, Barbara Graf, in running our emergency preparedness programs here at the city. There have been significant updates to the several plans, and we went over this in committee and there's a sort of a reorganization process that is consistent with state law. All of them are recommended by Ms.. Graff. And on December 2nd, the Public Safety, Civil Rights and Technology Committee recommended passage of this resolution. Thank you. Questions or comments? All in favor of adopting resolution 3163 to vote I. I opposed vote no. The resolution is unanimously adopted in the chair will sign it. Please, please read items 14 and 15 and 16.

AN ORDINANCE, relating to land use and zoning, amending the Seattle Comprehensive Plan to reflect changes needed as part of the periodic review and to incorporate changes proposed as part of the 2014-2015 Comprehensive Plan annual amendment process and amending Section 23.52.004 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

SeattleCityCouncil_10122015_CB 118469

Agenda Item eight Council Bill 118469. Relating to land used in zoning amending the Seattle Comprehensive Plan to reflect changes needed as part of the Periodic Review and incorporate incorporate changes proposed as part of the 2014 2015 Comprehensive Plan Annual Amendment Process and amending Section 23.52.004 of the Seattle Municipal Code. The committee recommends the bill passes amended. Thank you. Councilmember O'Brien. So this particular amendment is the more we do traditionally the traditional component of the comprehensive plan amendment on an annual basis. There are a number of changes throughout the city. This includes what we heard testimony on about changing the land use map, the zoning around the Church of the Nazarene in West Seattle. But there's a whole host of other changes that have been through committee. I would like to amend this by adding some language around establishing growth estimates in urban villages. I discussed this at briefing, but I'd like to go ahead and read. In my amendment. They would add a Section four which reads The council requests that the Department of Planning and Development or its successor department develop a proposal for Council consideration in 2016 that allocates a share of estimated residential and employment growth outside of urban centers to urban villages. The Council further requests that the alternative include policies or a narrative description of a work program to monitor how growth in urban centers and villages will be tracked in relation to existing and planned infrastructure. Second rate. And so, as I mentioned, under the CPA ordinance and these amendments this year, we will no longer have growth targets anywhere . We will have growth estimates in urban centers, but not in the villages. And what this amendment does is ask DPD to come back to City Council in 2016 with a proposal on how to include growth estimates broken down by urban village. Questions or comments? Councilmember Rasmussen. You're asking for questions relating to the entire bill. On this amendment first place. Councilmember Okamoto. The the latter part of the amendment speaks to. How. A work program to monitor how growth in urban centers and villages will be tracked in relationship to existing and planned infrastructure. Can you speak a bit more what planned infrastructure, what that refers to? I mean, it's intended to be broad. It would include things like transportation, parks, an open space, emergency services, fire stations, all the types of infrastructure utilities. And this puts it back on the department and the executive to come back with a plan as as the city grows that we're tracking the infrastructure investments concurrently you. Other questions or comments all in favor of Councilmember O'Brien's amendment. Vote I. I oppose Vote No. The amendment is unanimously adopted. Any questions or comments about the legislation? Councilmember Rasmussen. Thank you. I just need a clarification from Councilmember O'Brien, if you could help with that. With regard to the Murgon Junction heard the Church of the Nazarene minister speak about that and I'm familiar with the church and the wonderful work that it does. But can you explain that text? Is it the one that says except where as part of a development proposal, a long standing neighborhood institution is maintained? Well, how does that. Relate to the church in its proposals. Is that? Is that the one that I think the minister is if you have a question about that, is if you look if you're on online, if you look under attachment one, be current and propose future land use map Morgan Junction Residential Urban Village that will pull up a map and show an area of the future land use map where we're going to make the. Make the changes to include that property in a multi-family residential area instead of a single family residential area. Do you see that? I see the math. Right. That's where the hash marks. Correct. So you're proposing that it be it go from single family to multifamily in that neighborhood or right around that parcel? Yes, that's accurate. Again, this is this is the future land use map. It's not the actual zoning change, but this is a prerequisite. Right. Happens. And then the church is supportive of that. For what reason? I have heard repeatedly over the past year from both church and community members, frankly, an amazing outpouring for what is a relatively modest change. I believe it's going to allow the church to redevelop their parcel with some housing units, which will provide the financing to amount, allow them to stabilize the church and open space that has been used as a community park for a number of years to do that on into the future. I'm seeing nods, so I think I got it roughly correct. Thank you. Any other questions? Please call the role on the passage of the amended legislation. Sir want bagshot Gordon Harrell, I Licata II O'Brien. Okamoto, I. Rasmussen and President Burgess nine in favor nine opposed the. Bill passes and the chair will sign it. But before we do item nine, I want to alert folks that the Select Committee on Housing Affordability will meet approximately 5 minutes after the council meeting is over. Please read item nine.

Budget Workshop for Fiscal Years 2017-18 and 2018-19 to Provide Direction on Funding Requests for Budget Adoption on June 6, 2017. (Finance 2410)

AlamedaCC_05172017_2017-4341

Budget workshop for fiscal year 20 1718 and 2018 19 to provide direction on funding requests for budget adoption on June six, 2017. Thank you. Madam Mayor. Question a member matter. Public speakers want to speak to a certain item in the budget. How is that going to be managed? Because the time to speak is before and after. And there's no. Oh, they can speak on the item. But again, how is that? Can we manage? Are we going to go through a block? What's, what's let's. Just have this broken up into sections and there can be question and answer from the council after each section. And we can open up to public comment if there is public comment on that particular section. When we get to the departments at the end, I think ideally we would like to go through there is eight departments that have requests, not all 15. And so if we go through those eight requests at the end, we have them all together. So the public and the council can look at the the holistic list of requests. And I think that would be the ideal time for the Council to ask questions about that and the public to comment on it. Thank you. All right. Okay. I'm going to start this off first by just giving a little bit more overview of what we talked about. We're going to start out by talking about the big picture. The revenues are historic trends. Look at the five year projection. And if you look at our two year budget, because this is the start of the two year budget, and the reason we're having this workshop tonight is because the council asked for more direct input into what the departments are asking for. And if you look at just the two years, we are fine. Yeah, what we want to do is to give a five year projection and especially with CalPERS and changing assumptions in the future, what happens in year three and five is much more dramatic than is what is happening in year two and three. And so we want the council to look more at the long term. We have invited a consultant to give us more detailed information about CalPERS because it's affecting every city in California. So the decisions you make tonight or today or next year might be fine in the short term, but we want you to also look at it in the long term and what we have. So they will talk about the purse and the steps taken to date. And then we will go into the departments that I talked about earlier. And we also want to talk about two different revenue sources. One is one term revenues, and that's basically our fund balance above 25%, which is the council policy. And then also we want to get council direction to staff and we will bring this back hopefully June six, depending on what the input is today. Or Council adoption. So our overall vision goes back to not only what the Council did at the prior to goal setting. There was a quality of life survey that was done last year and we have our budget challenge that is online right now. And amazingly or not amazingly, all three of those inputs are very consistent. They all say we want a stable, financially sustainable budget into the future. That on all three of those is one of the top priorities. We also want to make sure that we have public safety. Public safety has ranked really high. We homelessness has ranked very high. We have a well-maintained community. So public works and maintenance has been strong. And all three of those areas, housing has been critical as a need to provide a variety of housing needs. And especially looking at the homeless issue in Alameda. All three of those inputs have ranked that very high. The budget challenge has also talked about the importance of historic structures and preserving those. And it did also in the Quality of Life survey. So we're going to go through some of that tonight. And I also want to thank all the department heads and staff and the consultants for putting this together. We don't expect to have a vote specifically, but more general direction tonight. Any questions from council at this point? And so I'll turn it over to our finance director, Elena Eder. Good evening. I'll consider that being evening. We're going to need to talk on the mike loud. Good evening. Elena, dear finance director. And I'm going to go over quite a few slides that are more financial in nature. And of course, we're going to start out with the citywide proposed expenditures. So just as a reminder, all of these numbers are. In draft form at this point. So we're continuing to refine them. So you will see potential when we bring it back in June six or June 20th depends on the timing. They may change a little bit, but likely not significantly. To show this particular presentation is a pie chart. The three top departments are police and fire and public works, which may kind of pose a question why is public works there? And the reason is that includes all of the capital projects that the department is doing. So all the spending on the capital and as you can see, it actually makes public works be one of the larger departments. Okay. Before you move on, doesn't does public works use general fund moneys or do we keep those money separate? It's a combination of various funding sources, which includes general fund in this particular presentation. This is a citywide expenditure regardless of what fund is. Okay. Are you're going to break it out at some point? Just general fund moneys? Yes. Sorry. And then just to bring that up, also in 1819 fiscal year, generally, the spread of expenditures between departments is very similar. So we didn't presented in this particular slide, but they're very similar. So moving on to a Zoom meeting really on a general fund, this particular graph really represents a historical trend as well as five years look forward on revenues and expenditures and primarily where we've been and what it looks like where we're going. Again, with just a reminder that a lot of the graphs you will see particular in the general fund, all the requests that were submitted by the departments are not included in this graphs. So should those be approved? These definitely graphs and the numbers will change. So before looking forward, we're going to look at the current year, even though we are not done with the year. And again, these numbers are not final. They haven't one. We haven't finished the year or two. They still need to be audited and confirmed. So at this point in time, generally, it's very similar to what you have seen at the mid-year mid-year update. However, at the time, the expenditures weren't looked at as closely just because the departments haven't really had an opportunity to do so. So this time around, what you do see is as departments were preparing for the next two year budgets, they also were looking at the current their current year expenditures within General Fund. And we're currently projecting that we will be under budget by about 2.7 million. So. As we usually look at general fund, we'll look at both sides, the revenues and expenditures. So in this particular chart obviously represents various revenue sources of the city. One of the bigger ones is a property tax. But I wanted to point out also the second largest source that we have is a sales tax. And normally that particular source is quite volatile, particularly if the economy is not as great. However, Alameda made really good progress in building up the base for its sales tax revenue, particularly after the autos left the city. And so the base sales tax base actually went up higher. And because because of that and business to business sales, the revenue is somewhat stable. So it's not fluctuates as much. It does fluctuate, but not so much. I also wanted to let you know that we've looked at various sources and evaluated the revenues in various ways, which included use of our consultants, whether it was a deal for sales tax and property tax. We also looked at the data provided by the county county assessor and obviously some of the things that are now set, such as the transfer tax from AMP that's been approved and update on the utility that happened. So to zoom in on a couple of different revenue sources, particularly property tax, as I've mentioned, this is the top revenue source for the city and represents 31%. This really represents a trend where the property tax been since 2006 in this case and where it's going. It actually is fairly stable revenue source. Even though we had the recession, as you can see, the property taxes decrease, but they didn't decrease as much or certainly it didn't decrease as much as some of the communities within California. Another revenue source that has been a. Congress. The topic of a conversation and also concern from the council members is transfer tax. And I'd like to focus on this particular one a little bit. And what we try to do is really present even greater trend for this particular source going back all the way to 2003 and see where we have been, how we budgeted for it versus what the actual revenue has been. I did not include the dollars just because it would be so busy on the graph, but hopefully you can actually see that by looking at the axis on the side. So what you see in here is the budget versus the actual. And we do understand that traditionally the concern was why are we under budgeting? And a couple of items that came up for the requests were always to exclude one time revenues. And because transfer tax is volatile, we don't know what might come in at what period of time. As so we try to exclude potential large one time revenues from property, from transfer tax when we do the budget. So as an example, in the current year 2017, so far through March, the revenues were received. We've had four transactions that occurred that were over $100,000 and actually those four transactions amounted to about $850,000. Whether they're going to occur again or not, we don't know. But those are potential fluctuations that we try to expect. Before you move on. Sorry. What year did it go up was 28. The transfer tax? Yes, it was increased in 2008. So I'd also like to point out on this graph, if you look at the year 2007 through 2009. Those are the years that we actually budgeted more and received less. And I think that is based on our. Our tendency to be conservative in our budgeting. So every other year we've actually budgeted less and received more. And so we've had this at the end of the year, a budget surplus as a result of. The property transfer tax primarily. And so it's a policy question from the council. We're trying to close the gap every year to be a little more accurate. But because it's so volatile, it's very hard to do. And it really depends so much on a few transactions of large properties. Especially commercial. Properties. And I think it would be also kind of important to note, as you can see in some cases, our property transfer tax revenues went down or were as low as $3 million. Even if we don't take the lowest one and would take somewhere in the range of 5 million and what we currently receive was nine. So if we're really over project, we may potentially have a significant drop in revenues. Okay. And you look at 26 to 7. Why would we budget so much more? That jump is more than double. Because we were reflecting a large increase of actuals in 2006. We usually look back at the actuals of the previous year and we were conservative. We e we. Budgeted less than we received the previous year, but. It dropped much farther than anticipated. So you just look back one year. When you're doing your budgeting, well. It looks like it. And that if you follow your dream. Yes. Yes. I remember. Just a follow up. Thank you. On the mayor's question, I mean, how relevant are those pre measure P or whatever it was increases? I mean, you say it was as low as 3,000,023 or 24. But I mean, is that really relevant considering our rate was so low compared to the way it is now? Well, as we can see, it actually did go up and could be at the same time because it was around 2008 that that particular change happened. That could have been one of the reasons why the budget was maybe higher. It could also be because, you know, maybe it has been under budget traditionally. I can't say I wasn't here, but maybe was. Staff's a reflection of trying to be more realistic. And so they also budgeted a little higher. But the flipside of it is that if you're budget hire and you expect that money to come in and they don't, what do you do then? The other thing, madam, if I may, one of the things that we're looking at is the volume of sales as opposed to actual value because of exactly what you're saying council member about in 2008, the actual number is going up because of the the ballot measure. So we're actually looking at the volume of sales and seeing if we can trend the volume as opposed to the actual dollar amount. So do you have a chart for that? We're working on it. Got it. Well, we have it before. Wendy anticipate we'll have that. We'll have that before the sixth. Member matters for the 1718 through 22 rejections. Do they take into account? Do they anticipate, say, day and other developments along? The Northern waterfront. Not a one time large transfer. And we actually tried to figure out what would be a transfer tax when the original transfer happens to the developer. And the dollar amount actually didn't come to that high of a number. So potentially the transfer tax is going to be higher once the developer builds the homes and sells. When they sell it to somebody, there's a transfer tax. This doesn't we don't you didn't factor that into this. No, thank you, Erica. I'm writing one last question. So on the 2017 number, is that to date. Though, that's a projection through the end of rejection. So that's not the actual. Okay. No, thanks. Okay. Before we move on. So we're going to be using these numbers then to come up with our budget. We're going to assume and we're looking at expenditures, we're going to be assuming that this is income. Right. That's one of the revenue numbers. Okay. So then I'm going to ask you, so you have a steady increase. Do you ever have a correction? I don't see you know, if you look at the other right, it goes up and down. You just have it going up. Correct. So the assumption is it's going to go with a assessed value increase. So you're correct, there's no necessarily prediction that it's going to be a recessionary period. So I don't necessarily have that in my crystal ball. I think the other thing is we do mid-cycle adjustments and midyear adjustments. So if we see that what's coming in during the year is less than we were anticipating significantly then we will adjust that revenue in midyear. We'll come back and say, you know, this is way off the mark, it's not coming in the way it is , particularly if there is the beginning of an economic downturn. So we will make those tweaks mid-cycle or mid-year. Thank you. Okay. The other item, obviously a through number of last few years, we've tried to spend down our available balance in 2015. But since then, because revenue has been coming in a little higher as well as we didn't necessarily spend everything we've budgeted for, we have accumulated available fund balance that is greater than the policy and the current policy . City Council policies 20%. However, it was increased by an additional five and so it's at 25 currently. And at this point, again, draft numbers, but we calculate about $10 million to 10.8 over the 25% of available balance that is available. Again, these are one time funds, meaning they don't necessarily just come in every year. It's an accumulation over a number of years. And so the best way in the best policy to spend this type of funds are on non-recurring type of expenditures or one time expenditures. So moving on to expenditures. And one of the things, obviously, it's the biggest the biggest one for us is labor. And this particular represents the assumptions that really relate to labor costs. We will talk later in greater detail about PERS, but we have included the assumptions for CalPERS. Again, it is the current rates that have been provided so far by CalPERS to the city includes their smoothing. However, the recent change that happened with their discount rate is not necessarily been calculated yet. They were expected to provide those to us sometime during the mid-summer to early fall. Once we get those, we will see how close we got. But they've given estimates a range. How much will the rates change? So we've tried to incorporate it, but again, it may be adjusted. The other assumptions we included are the increases in health premiums 3% in each year. We used to have a greater increases built into the budget before and in the past few years they haven't come in as high. So we're trying to be a little more realistic in that sense. So 3%. Again for both the active employees health as well as the OPEB premiums. The other items. Yes. Member Ashcraft. Thank you. So speaking of increases in health care funds and I know you don't have a crystal ball, but we have been operating up until now under the Affordable Care Act out of Washington, D.C. There's certainly talk about doing away with it, changing it. What what, if any, impact do. Does the uncertainty at the federal level. That certainly impacts the state have on these numbers and your projections? Right now, they're not necessarily built in. It's one of the risks that is out there in terms of us putting together a budget. So should those come up? We would certainly be addressing them as they occur. Okay. Thanks. So other items. Just one more point of those are all contracts. And so we would have a year for the current contract to in order to respond if it changed. So it won't happen overnight. That and then we'll go back to the mid-cycle. Thank you. Yeah. And before we move on, on the prior page, you talked about excess fund balance. You have over 25%, if I'm reading it correctly, is that 10.8 million? But the policy was 20%. Write the overridden policy or the one that we always talk about is 20%. However, back in either 2014 or 15, through a suggestion from staff that dollar or that percentage was increased to 25%, but it's not actually set into a policy was a temporarily increase and it's just stayed at 25% still. So the number if we just add the 20%, that's excess. You know it it's not on this. I would calculated but. Yeah. 5% and 90. Yeah. He had another three. 3 to 4 million. Another 3 to 4 million. Okay, great. Thanks. Just as a quick one. So what has been also incorporated are all the ammo used per ammo you provisions. However, miscellaneous bargaining groups ammo use are ending in 2018 and so potential changes that could be negotiated. We don't know what they may be, but they may also affect the budget. Vice Mayor Are we at all. Participating or following in relative to the health care increases, the public hearings that have been occurring regarding insurance companies and insurance rates? Even having them in the state building in San Francisco, they had one in February. Did we participate in. That at all? No, not that I'm aware of. But there's there is conversations and webinars all over for finance directors and H.R. about those changes. Okay. I mean, this was specific to there was. Legislation. That was passed last year having to do with more transparency surrounding our insurance rates here in California. And the rising. Cost of premiums. Right. So I think if we could at least I don't know if we've considered it or looked at the reports that have come out from those hearings. Aptly. Well, it's in our predictions. I mean, just. I personally have not. Our rates actually are set by CalPERS. So it's not something the city can choose unless we choose to get out of CalPERS on the health insurance side. Right. And that definitely would be part of negotiations before that can happen. So. And it's very expensive. Yes. Well, you have to move everybody out. But my question has to. Do, I mean, because PERS is also participating in these hearings relative to what's going on with the premium rate. So. Those are the 3%. Their prediction then in terms of the increases? No, we actually used our actuary predictions or not predictions, their assumptions that they used when they produced actuarial valuations for our OPEB costs. Mm hmm. So we use those. So here's a chart by department strictly for general fund that breaks down the costs of each department. And again, that same thing. It's very similar for the 1819 fiscal year. So we didn't present it, but it's generally the same. And here is the five year. Chart. Again, this is drafted numbers. We continue to refine them. They also do not include any of the requests, additional requests that you will hear later from the departments. This slide obviously does not show a really good, great picture going forward, but this also assumes we are at the status quo and nothing changes. So one of the things that we do is we generally present a balanced budget when we bring it to council for adoption. And what that assumes is that staff is not necessarily going to do absolutely nothing and leave it as is. But that kind of shows at this point, if we do nothing, this is what happens. City manager. So this is the end of this section. If the council has additional questions or wants public comment. And then I'd like to introduce our two consultants after that. All right. Any council questions on this section? Any public comment on this section? Okay. I do have a question back on page 11, you have assumes no inflation increases. Or non personnel that scouts for each of these years when you move forward. Can you? She's asking about the last bullet point on page 11 says assumes no inflation increases. That correct me right. And it says in all years but years, is it just 17, 18 or is it through this 21, 22 year, five year forecast? Is it so it is assuming no inflation increases for the five year forecast. For the five year end. What generally happens is we don't assume an automatic increase. So for services and supplies generally, those are not as much obviously as Labor. So we don't just automatically say departments this year you're going to get two or 5% increase. We request them to hold the line and manage within what they have or what has council already approved is when certain contracts are brought to you for approval. They are already have built in adjustments going forward in each year. So those are included. No, this is vendor contracts. All right. Correct. So those do already have built in. In some cases. Yes. And those are generally already approved by council. So those do assume increases, but there's no automatic increase for cost of living. Okay. So then do we know, like what percentage of our supplies in those types of expenses are not covered by contracts that have the built in? I would have to go probably through each department and get every department to review that. Okay. So we. Don't have the detail of. That idea, but the dollar amount is overall just so we can see, in fact. So it's not built into that, but it's not built into. So about 76% or so of general fund expenditures are labor. So everything else is going to be transfers out and vendor contracts or services. And some of those contracts do in fact already have a built in, but some replies don't. I don't know the percentages that are most of our supplies. Covered by these contracts are few of our suppliers covered by these contracts. We have and I. Wouldn't be able to answer that question right now. All right. Thank you. Okay. So for the next section, what we wanted to do this year was to do quite a deep dove into the CalPERS. There's been a lot going on at the state level and throughout the whole state on CalPERS and OPEB. And we've hired an H, a advisors. So we have a principal here, Craig Hill and Mike Meyer, who is Vice President, and they are going to go through this next section and answer questions that are that every city right now is struggling with. And they've specifically looked at our data and our CalPERS data. Good evening, Mayor Spencer, and honorable council members. My name is Mike Meyer. I'm here tonight with my partner, Craig Hill, and we're excited to be working with the city on its upcoming budget. Before I get into, we have prepared about seven or eight slides on CalPERS and pension costs. But to address Mayor Spencer, your question on the transfer tax, we are actually doing a deep dove on that as well with city staff and looking through a couple decades worth of numbers with the county. And so we're a bit dependent on them to send us information, but we are looking at various factors that we can use to help it get more comfortable in predicting that number moving forward. So we will be bringing something back shortly. And then you are aware there was an increase in the tax of what we charged at 2008? It went up. The voters vote approved an increase in the transfer tax percentage. Yeah. All right. Thanks. As I mentioned, we are here to talk about CalPERS and the city's pension plans. I'll give you a brief update on cost trends over the last 10 to 15 years and talk about a few recent assumption changes that are going to be impacting the city in a big way. And we've taken those assumptions and done some projections to look at costs over the next 20 to 30 years. And so moving on to Slide 15. As you're aware, the city does have two plans, the first being the safety plan, which covers all police and fire employees and all non safety employees are covered by the miscellaneous plan . The city makes payments on both of these plans each year to CalPERS. And there's two components of this annual cost, the first being the normal cost, which is the annual cost for current employees. And then there's what's known as the unfunded accrued liability or. And this essentially is the difference between how much the city actually has versus what it should have. And so this gap or shortfall is it's not repaid all at once, but it's amortized over a 20 to 30 year range with the city making principal and interest payments each year just like any piece of debt. I do want to note that the uel balance does fluctuate each year depending on actual investment performance by CalPERS as well as any changes they make to assumptions such as their investment, target rate, mortality rates or any benefit changes to the plan. So this it is kind of a moving target, but we do have very up to date info in these slides. And before you move on, when you say how much we should have, but does that actually mean what we know. Or. To be 100% funded? 100% funded? Yeah. What happens is if CalPERS doesn't meet its investment targets, then you are lower than 100% funded in the plan and you are on the hook for making that up to CalPERS. Okay. So I actually like that language like with a footnote or something, what we should have because. Right to clarify that language that you just used. Okay. The concept of the UAE is relatively new. Back in the 1990s, CalPERS was earning above 10%, and I don't believe there was many cities across the state with a jewel. This is a recent phenomena, and it's due to the fact that CalPERS has been earning less than 6% on average over the last decade, which is well short of their investment targets. So their investment target prior to O3 was eight and a quarter, which they had to reduce to seven and three quarters in a three. They reduced it again in 2013 to 750 and they are going to be phasing in a three year reduction to 7%. And so those those are the two big factors that combined will impact a city's unfunded liability. So actual performance as well as changing the assumptions. And so in terms of what that has done to the cities, Jewel, just in the last ten years, the miscellaneous plan has grown from 17 million to 63 million, and the safety plan has essentially tripled from 50 million to about 150 million. And this those numbers are based on the CalPERS valuation reports that were published this past fall, and that totals 215 million total for the city member. Thank you. So two quick questions. So do we know from that 17 what the percent was? I mean, did it go from. Oh percent funded of the plan. I mean, we. Have the 0304 numbers, but so last decade would be what? 070708 that 17 million, I'm guessing, is for the miscellaneous. It's in the mid-nineties. And then on the safety plan, probably high 80%. But I could. I could it might be helpful to have that in the future. And then what is the best practice? I mean, is it 100% funded? 115 80? I mean, what's the number that. Well, ideally, you'd like to be at 100%. That caliber sends you a bill each year in the cities paying that full bill every year. So they're making 100% of the annual required contribution. This number is really outside of the city's control because it's purely dependent on investment performance. And so to get that percentage higher, you would have to pay more than they're asking you to pay, essentially. And so there are some slides moving forward about what the city's already done because it has set aside extra money already back in 2015 for OPEB and person. And that's really the main option that main tool cities across the state are using if they are in that position to use excess reserves. But you're going to share like the different options. Yeah, yeah. Okay. So I'll hold those questions till then. Thank you. Member Ashcroft I have a question. So I assume you work with different cities around the state on these issues? That's correct. So where does Alameda fall in terms of the the percent percentage funded we have of our two funds? This is a common theme across the state. So as we'll get into the percentage that we're expecting the up to to grow even from this 215 million, I'd say is slightly below the average I've been seeing. But that our percentage funded is slightly below what you see. It's I'd say it's slightly above above, but but in general, this is this is where most cities are are at. Yeah. Thanks. And I think the as we'll get into that since this is part of the budget workshop, you know, it's it's almost easier to look at these cost in total dollars and also what those dollars are becoming as part of the budget. Because as as we'll see in the future slides, next year's total costs are a little above 18 million. And in just five years those will be that'll be about 30 million. So it's quite an increase. Slide 17. This chart shows the annual cost that the city has made to purchase each year for both the normal cost as well as the payments to amortize. As well as the cost to amortized the fuel which are shown in the gray top bars at the normal cost being shown in the purple. And so, you know, the big takeaway here is that normal cost is the city has really done a good job at managing these costs. It's it's it's been steady at around about the 6 million mark. This is it proactive reform manageable hires. It's really the fuel that is the uncontrollable factor and has risen. Significantly over the last 14 years. And so overall, you can see back in oh four, the city was paying 6 million to PERS and next fiscal year 1718 , we estimate that that payment will be between 18 and 19 million. So that payment has tripled over the last 14 years. Moving on to Slide 18. There have been two recent developments. One actually piece of news that was released. A second actual change to CalPERS assumptions. Last year's returns were very poor. They were barely over, barely positive, to 3.6%. The second factor that's going to be impacting costs moving forward is, as I mentioned, Purves is reducing their discount rate assumption to 7%. And so these are factors that have not yet been incorporated into CalPERS reports that's going to be released this summer. But we have we have our own models and we have projected that the combined impact of these two changes are going to drive up the UAA from 215 to 290 million over the next few years. And all of that really comes to this Slide 19 and this bar chart, which is an attempt to project out estimated costs for the next 30 years. And so these costs are based on this is the combined normal cost as well as this new 290 million uel that. We just discussed on the prior slide. And just to point out with what each color represents, the bottom portion is the city's normal cost in dark purple. And you can see in light purple, there's a slight increase to the normal cost from this new discount rate reduction. Directly above that in blue. In the light blue is the miscellaneous plan payments, and in dark blue is the safety plan payments. And these are these are based on last year's CalPERS valuation report. And so the two colors at the top are really to demonstrate the impact of these two recent developments. So in green, you have the impact from last year's poor returns and. I should note that those are spread out over 30 years. As you can see, the yellow bars is the impact from the discount rate reduction. And CalPERS is going to be amortizing that over a shorter period, 20 year period, which puts a little bit more pressure on on cities. Mm hmm. In terms of overall cost, you could see that the 18 and a half million for next year is quickly growing to about 32 million by 2022. And then we estimate that that number will be 40 million in 2030. So essentially doubling more than doubling over the next 13 years. Hmm. The next two slides are. Basically these same costs shown as a percentage of payroll going back five years and also projecting forward five years. And so this first chart on Slide 20 is for the safety plan. You could see that the employees are picking up 15% and the city is shown in blue, picking up the employer rate. And you could see that the overall rate is going from 63% next fiscal year to above 90% over the next five years. And then on the miscellaneous plan, you can see that the total percentage cost as a percentage of payroll is going from 30 to 48% over the five year period. And to to to finish up. You know, the city has, as I mentioned earlier, taken some proactive steps to address these costs through pension reform, which was to increase the employee share of costs to 15%. There was also the Peprah Reform Act of 2013, which will ensure that new hires are also paying their fair share and increasing that employee share of cost. In 2015, the city did set aside 6 million after four years and half for OPEB costs. And those are going to be if they're not already, I think I believe they're in a Section 115 trust, which is a separate retirement vehicle that's solely dedicated to funding OPEB and PERS liabilities. In terms of. Brody. I'm sorry. So, can staff confirm? What where is that? 6 million. We still have it. It's. It's it's sitting in a restricted. But is it in a fund that's actually earning income. Or is it just sitting there? We have it. Hours later. Because it's been about a. Year in life. Right. That in life. For two years. I think we. As part of it in our pooled investment. So we're just waiting after this discussion and discussing with the council to determine, you know, what are we going to do with that 6 million? Okay. I mean. Just. We just as you recall, we just set up that 115 trust. Yeah, I remember. But I think on the OPEB, we've actually earned a substantial amount of money in one year. And, you know, it's a little unfortunate that, you know. Oh, that amount that amount that we were contractually obliged to deposit absolutely has been deposited. That was 5 million might be put into the trust. That wasn't my point. My point was we put 5 million there and I think it's grown to, what, six? And we've had we said six aside that, you know, maybe could have grown a little bit more if we had done something earlier. And, you know, I mean, I guess it's water over the bridge now. We're moving as fast as we can. Nice if we can make that decision. That's part of the $6 million that is actually currently sitting set aside as a reserve balance in general fund. One of the things that we tried to determine on our end internally is what is the best way to set the funds aside? And we are actually working with the consultant to figure out is it best to put it more in OPEB, more in pension side? Is there a combination of of some sort or is there a hybrid where maybe some of the money needs to be sent directly to CalPERS? And that's part of the decision that we end evaluation we're making. You're going to go over these now with us, right? Not at this. Time. Oh, okay. So I guess maybe the bottom line is at what point are we going to actually start earning and investment income on the $6 million? Because we haven't really. No, not yet. So at what point. Here was a question. So after this. Has been over a year, if I remember correctly. And I guess that's what's frustrating that, you know, we could have been earning. A great assessment in come on. This that. You know, based on your performance on the OPM one, you know, could be quite substantial. I guess more of a complaint, but it'd be nice to know what the answer is on the. Well and what we're planning on after this June six budget adoption and H. A we'll come back with an analysis of whether it's best to put I mean, we're assuming that there is going to be more than to a total of 6 million based on the council direction tonight. And so we'll have additional funds and we want to do an analysis of whether it's more cost effective to put that in the Section 115 trust or to give that to PERS to directly lower our unfunded liability. Member Ashcraft. Sorry. I'm sorry. So, you know, and to that point, I mean, the governors may revise kind of had a similar thing where he put away $6 billion and he has the same rat in the snake picture in his that we have. And then over 20 years, you know, that's estimated to save 11 billion. So I think the sooner we can get this money invested and start earning income on it, whichever option we choose, I just think it's best. So, I mean, this is really a lot higher priority to me than a lot of the other stuff we talk about. Remember Ashcroft? Well, I was just going to ask, so what will we how will we be making that decision? Because that was a question that came up in my mind of, you know, what? What is the better option to invest? But what will you what will you be taking into consideration and in making that recommendation? That's a great question. So the the the two main options that are shown on this slide are really to take excess reserves and to either fund more into the Section 115 trust, which is a separate vehicle that will grow over time. You have flexibility to use those funds in any year to make payments on your OPEB liability purse. Or you can just let it grow over time and perhaps it'll, you know, at a later date will be in an amount great enough to it fully extinguish or useful in theory. Or you can give the money to pers directly. You'll see a direct reduction in the fuel as well as the payments associated with that component of the fuel. So mechanically they're a bit different. We've gone through this analysis in other cities and it's a it's its own work three hour workshop. And so I think the goal here tonight was to show big picture eye level numbers and why why they're changing. Obviously, any analysis really boils down to how much money are we talking about, setting aside, what years does the city need to see savings? And so that's some of the analysis that we'll be doing, as well as just talking about benefits and risks of both of these options and whether doing one makes sense versus the other or perhaps some sort of hybrid approach, which is what we've we've seen all of it before. And and is it is it an election you make each year? You did mention a hybrid approach. So so that that could be an option. But I think right now we're talking about one time funds, excess monies. This sounds like a discussion for another time. So but but it is I mean, because we're paying debt service right now on the right, the balance. And so but you that's what the analysis. Will. Include. And in in concept, while they are mechanically a little different, it's similar objectives. It's to earn more money over the long haul, which will hopefully make a bigger dent in these liabilities than if the money was in something else, earning less than 2% think. And then. So that's this section. And so we can have the council ask questions and provide feedback in section and open it up to public comment. Member mARASHI I think the two things that I take away from this is we need a sense of urgency on it. So that discussion for another time should be another time soon. And to Councilmember Otis point, let's get the $6 million and whatever contributions that might come out of this budget deliberation. Into a. Investment return bearing account. Quickly. I completely agree. Completely agree. And I just commend the city manager for bringing in the consultants because I think that's extremely important. We all know how dire a circumstance this is that we're facing on into the future, but I think we can use some good direction to help us address it most effectively. Thank you all. I swear. How much will the. Actuarial report weigh into the recommendation that you're going to give? I don't think too much. CalPERS is actually over the last year or two, but for the first time, actually a little bit more transparent about what's coming down the road in the past. It's one report. Unless you really want to enter some modeling of things, it's all you really see is what am I paying next year, maybe two years out in terms of a percentage rate, they've sent out a five or six year forecast. And so we are using something a little separate, but we are comparing that and we're pretty much right on. So we feel comfortable that the next report is going to be similar to what we're projecting. Okay. My second question is, I mean, especially with the direct pay down that that really is impacted by how much money we're looking to put in at a given time, correct? I mean. Yeah, that money is if you decide to give CalPERS the money, it's it's it's gone, right. I have a question if you want to go back to that page, 1962 of 62 pages. Okay. This is each year how much the city would accumulate on a yearly basis. This is what the cost will be for person payments. On a yearly basis. Yearly basis. Okay. So then is there a way to have some kind of chart or do we have something like that that shows year after year, depending upon how much we are action that we pay? Out accumulates over time. Are you suggesting we're going to be writing and doing the 40 million or. But. And, you know, so so the top point of this is approximately 40 million. That's right. Okay. So if if there was nothing done today and CalPERS met all its assumptions moving forward at 7% growth each year in the year 2031, this would be your payment to CalPERS, which is the combined normal cost. And you how is your question related to. So if we don't have 40 million, like what happens? I mean, I would actually expect a chart that does this at some point. Just instead of like this is going pretty much straight across small increases. Yeah. I mean. They would they would have to continue to earn very, very poor returns for it to be, I think, steeper than this. But as I mentioned earlier in that. Presentation. This will fluctuate each year based on actual performance, but the general shape of this is not going to change. A whole lot. But this is each year. Okay. So what happens if the city doesn't have that much money each year to pay it? We as we accumulate over time. That's that's a good question. If you don't have the annual 100% of your annual requirement and to be quite honest, I haven't run into that situation, but I can find out. And one of the the Section 115 trust of putting money into that is a way to in times when we couldn't make it, you could use that 115 trust to pay. That's correct. And that portion in the U. A L continues to grow. That's correct. And flexibility and. Flexibility, I would say, is one of the biggest benefits of the Section 115 in a year, when you might not have the money in the general fund just to make your annual payment, you can withdraw funds out of the Section 115 to make that payment. Okay. But we're talking about a doubling over the next decade, year after year. So right now, we may be able to come up with a 17 five. But then the city is going to be obligated to pay the. 40 million year after year. The high. Right. Yes. So. So if you look at the amount of money we have in our. You know, left over in our reserves. Okay. We could do that maybe one year. But where does this difference come year after year? Right. And that's part of why we were saying we could meet the budget in the two years. But what is most concerning is year three and beyond when all of these. Unfunded liability grows and our annual amount triples. Okay. But you're saying you haven't run into it because guess I mean, when I look at this is because you're not at that point where it's doubling right year after year. And that's what that's our focus, every city in California. So I appreciate that. But I'm looking for the chart that actually shows that issue. That's so I appreciate you said okay you have run into it because look at the numbers the difference between 17 five and 44 multiple years. And if you look at how much we have in reserves. I think I see where you're going with this. And I could create another chart. I think you have a significant. You're talking about human to human have. Absolutely. Based on this year's was the cumulative impact. Right. Because we have reserves that will be exhausted. You're one. You're too. Okay. What about the rest? I mean, when I look at this, I see a I'm actually seeing a chart missing. It is actually devastating. And you can correct me if I'm wrong. I don't know where they are. The reserves will be exhausted in year one or year two. And you have a chart that goes on for year after year after year that not only goes on and on and on, but it increases from 17.5 to it looks like 40. And I don't see that chart. And I think that is a significant problem because if you use our so I guess the chart I'm looking for, we'll have our current. Revenues. One chart, current revenues. It's going to have that line, right. And then it's going to show. Paying this off year after year. Where is that money coming from? And that's what the chart I need to see, because you're going to have your gap and it's going to be dramatic. And that's not here. So, I mean, I don't I don't think that you have a chart that projects the crisis that is a serious problem. That's missing. So we need to see that. I'd like that when you come. And it comes back. And feel free to go up to 2048. Because I'd like to actually be very clear why I continually vote no. Go ahead. So can we project revenues out to 2048? You can use whatever number you want. I mean, it. Doesn't make sense that the current the current revenue is going to stay the same for the next. It's not going to double 30 years. I don't know what the answer is. That's what I'm asking. And I think some of the answer might even be at the state level that the state is struggling with this as well, and so are all the cities. And it is going to have to get into the details of CalPERS and look at CalPERS directly, because it is it could bankrupt a number of cities in California. Madam Mayor, I think could is a is a kind word. It will, because if you look, all you have to do is look at the other charts that have been presented and draw the line. And that's their job they should be visiting. If you look at the charts that we've been presented, and I think the utility of of what the mayor's talking about is that next time you come back and we talk about what to how to address this, because we're not going to be able to address this tonight. We have to go through the budget. We have to see what's been project, what's been requested in the budget. And we have to see what the revenue projections look like as well as what the expenditures are. But a dynamic chart, because you can do that in a dynamic presentation that says, okay, plug in $3 million set aside each year, see what that does to this line. And also the line that the mayor is looking at is when do we run out of money? And then right in the gap. And. Out here. And I think putting something together like that would be far more useful when we have the amount of money that we can we can use based on our fund balance in the next few years trying to address it. And and honestly and I appreciate that at some point we're going to have to think about the how. But I'm really more focused right now on at least let's have the honest conversation with the honest projections as best you can come up with over time. So at least we see your estimates of what these numbers are in the gap number Ashcraft and then Vice Mayor. Thank you. So on page 13, we have the general fund budget overview. And I mean, we saw it in a pie chart on page 12, then we see it in line line items, columns going from the fiscal year 1718 to 21, 22. Is there a reason we don't project out beyond five years in a in a forecast. I'm going to defer to Lena. There's a few reasons. So generally we could build a model that's going to look into ten, 20, 30 years. And some few cities do that. The issue becomes, though, it's very difficult to really predict revenues generally beyond three years, really. And five years is kind of like the max. After that, the revenues really don't necessarily make much of a sense. So the farther you go out, the correct. The more reliability. Exactly. Okay. Correct. So I understand what the mayor the point she's raising. I think it's very valid. But I also think that we I would like us to go out as far as we can. And I want our assumptions to be as conservative as possible, because I would rather think that we are bringing in less revenue and in our expenses are higher than and then be surprised the other way. But at the same time, I want a measure of reliability to. So thank you for that question for that. And I just want to remind on this particular slide. When we were talking about it, the idea was here is this is if we do absolutely nothing and the goal is that we are going to do something and it's not going to happen. We are presenting this to you today so that you do have an idea of what the future looks like and what we may have to deal with. Thanks. Vice Mayor. Actually, Elena, I have a sorry. Since you're up here. Of course. So, with regards to this slide, the within the estimates relative to the revenue, however, estimates lined up. I mean, I think it's good to have the perspective forecast, but I also think it's helpful to be looking at this side by side with what our previous forecasts have been for the previous five years and where they actually lined up. Right, because we were somewhat conservative in our estimates. So how far off the mark were we in terms of the previous five years? But also, I mean, I was at a different presentation in a in another municipality recently and their forecasting showed somewhat of a market stabilization. So they saw huge or relatively significant growth in their revenues in the end of this year, the year prior, like the past three years. And then they're predicting more of a stabilization in terms of their their market to maybe, you know, their estimates are 3 to 4% revenue increase may be over the next couple of years. And then outside of that, they're they're less certain, but they're seeing more kind of a stabilization as opposed to that kind of significant growth. Is that the same sort of trend that you're seeing here or you're forecasting? Yes. And we've as I mentioned, we've talked to our consultants as well on things like sales tax. So they're predicting it or their prediction is that it's stabilizing and it's going to grow as much. Right. In terms of property tax, what would be helpful to us? Obviously, our base on the property taxes are fairly solid and fairly high values. What assessor has seen so far is regular, perhaps 2% growth unless we have new developments or new homes that come in. So that obviously is going to increase it and show greater growth. So it really depends what may happen. And again, those are dependent on what the economy is. Going to do as well. Right. Okay. But I just want to add, remember, there is the chart where I brought up, we don't have a downward cycle shown. We just show a stabilization or small growth. We don't anticipate this in these over a downward cycle, which we all know is not reality. So and then my other question is, and I know that the state has done modeling relative to different, you know, different scenarios with different set asides and what they do. And I think for me, what I'm what I'm looking for is I'd like to see, you know, those longer models knowing that the, you know, the accuracy of . Them. Might fall off. The further out we go. But I would really like to, at least from my perspective, focus on the next 2 to 3 years and really see the different options relative to the models, especially when we're looking at a two year budget, what the impact of a decision in the two year budget could look like relative to the modeling that that's being put forward. That was discussed by the mayor. Member Ashcraft. Thank you. Ms.. Adair, when you mentioned sales tax, and if I recall correctly, it's something like 10% of our general fund revenue. So I understand that we've seen steady business to business sales tax with some of the new businesses we've attracted to Alameda. But I keep hearing in the news that brick and mortar retail is dropping off, that consumers buying habits are changing. So are we factoring that into because people just aren't shopping in stores as much even for things like groceries? Not that you pay a lot of sales tax on groceries, but it's just so easy. I think they say clicks rather than bricks is what is driving the retail market these days. So how are we factoring that in? So. The clicks actually work really well in Alameda County, and we do receive a significant amount of revenues from people buying whatever they purchase online. And it's a quite a high percentage of our sales tax quarterly that we do receive. And and if the city voters wanted to do a local sales tax, that would be significantly more to get all the, you know, other sales tax that, you know, by people who purchase in Alameda. Our local residents especially vehicles and boats and. I don't think we sell vehicles in Alameda anymore, do we? But the way. They use it, it's it actually it is determined not by. Where you. Go, but where the registration is. Only on a local tax and not on the Bradley Burns. Okay. That is something. So we at the end of this section. Yes. And so if we can. Just my comments. But I think we had a public comments also on the section. Yes. But we have a of. All right, gentlemen, for you both speaking just one of you, whose did you want to speak together? How do you want to do this? All right. I think we have. One more seven Kennedy. I'm sorry. I might have one more. Thanks. Well. Actually, actually. I was going to wait till the end, but most of my comments are related to this issue. As you can probably imagine. So I figure I'll jump up now. Also, hopefully, maybe too you're asking some great questions on it. If there's anything I can do to help clarify it too. I think Lena and staff have done a wonderful job with that, but I've spent a inordinate amount of time with. It a little louder. Yeah. Absolutely. So soft. Spoken. Sorry. It's people are watching at home. They want to hear. Yeah, don't be so shy and retiring. I'll try. Now. He's our auditor. No, I'm. Sorry I messed up, Treasurer. Sorry. I'm going to blame the auditor. If you. Gotta see him side by side to tell you we're. Interchangeable. He's the CPA. I'm the planner. But I wanted to comment about this. But first I did want to acknowledge staff. And also this council and past councils the past couple of years have worked out very well. That's undeniable. We're in a great position where we can have an even have this kind of a conversation about being able to maybe pre-fund some of this or prepare ourselves for what's coming. And I think it's great through a combination of conservative budgeting where the economy recovered faster than we thought. Some good luck with some one time things that came in and and some smart decisions. We're in a spot where we can do some positive things. Also wanted to commend staff on allocating such a good chunk of time towards an issue. That's not a lot of fun. This deserves the attention it's getting, and I appreciate that they're spending the time to educate everybody, including the public, about what this looks like, because as you all, I think, have been commenting the last couple of minutes, this is a ginormous issue and it's important for everybody to understand the dynamics that are at work. This is something that the auditor and I spent a ton of time on. We've spoken up here many times. We did a report on this ten years ago, the Fiscal Sustainability Committee report, which projected out a lot of these things. A lot of this now we're starting to see come true. Unfortunately, you're starting to actually see the impact of it, which doesn't make anybody happy. The scary thing in my mind with this is unlike some of the other liabilities that we've talked about and we highlighted in that report, like deferred maintenance, you know, fixing streets and sidewalks or even for that matter, putting aside money towards retiree medical, a program which was started in 1992 or three, but up until recently hadn't really been funded. This is a bill that we don't have the discretion of whether or not we want to pay it in that current year when CalPERS sends us the bill. We pretty much have to pay it. So we might decide, you know, the budget's tight. Let's not fix as many streets this year or let's not put aside money for OPEB. But when it comes to this, it's going to it's going to basically hit us and we're not going be able to to defer that. And that worries me because that's a different dynamic than what we've seen with some of these obligations in the past. And as was so eloquently, as the word pointed out tonight, it hits us like a tidal wave. It doesn't hit us in this budget cycle, but it certainly does in the next one. And again, I think it's great that staff is is looking beyond just this budget to talk about that because it's going to be pretty dramatic to the to the mayor's point, some of your points. It absolutely continues what you see as a five year projection. I've spent a lot of times with time, with projections when we built our model. And also look at this. I think the projections at staff houses are good. And I don't think going out beyond five years is hugely constructive. But I think the stories told right there in the first five years, and if you want to take it out of sixth year, assuming you do nothing but save that money that we have as excess right now in the sixth year, that general fund balance basically goes to zero. So I don't know if we need to carry it out a lot further, but certainly the problem continues out a lot further. Based on all of that. I would tell you that I think there was there was some talk last time I was here last month about is the city a business? And I think clearly the city's not a for profit business. But I would say absolutely we have to run the city like a business. And in that regard, the people entrust you and us as elected officials to make sure that we deliver a good product, that we deliver it at a good price to them, and that we are very conscious about the fiscal stability of the city. And I think you all are very much in tune with that. So I think we do have a business mentality here, and I think it really needs to be on high alert here for this next cycle in terms of how do you address this? Again, I think it's a bill that's pretty much immovable. So it's not an option of, well, can we wait and pay this down the road or when we have one time money? Again, this is going to be there with the one time money we have now. I think it's pretty clear the prudent thing is to try to set aside as much of that as possible, to prepare us for what we know is coming, to make sure that we make decisions between now and then that don't exacerbate the problem. That we're very cautious about any spending. Otherwise, as you saw from that slide with the five year projection, we're looking at pretty material cuts every year, which are disruptive to our workforce, disruptive to our people. And to some degree, I think can be mitigated. What I would prefer not to see what I think maybe isn't the best policy is to spend a lot of that money or to to to exacerbate the problem, to have hope as a business plan. I had. One of the first things I learned in business is hope is not a business plan. And to hope that maybe something's going to fall from the sky or the feds are going to do something or or something magical will happen to help us out. Boy, I hope as much as anybody that that happens, but I don't think that's a business plan. I also am not a big fan of the idea of of not doing what we can today and then asking the people to deal with it via any kind of a tax. I think we have the ability to deal with this to some degree right here now and to not do that and then ask hardworking Albertans who are already facing high rents and high cost of living to pony up more dough to deal with this, I think, is also a difficult thing to do. So I think there's a great opportunity for us to get a little bit ahead of the curve. Your questions about if we put this money aside, what is it do are very valid and I and I as much as anybody would like to see those projections, but in my mind, there's no question that we need to prepare as much as possible for something that we're just not going to be able to dodge. And this, again, unlike street fixing streets or something like that, is really an immovable object. My biggest concern and the reason for 20 years, 17 years I've been treasurer and been talking about this stuff is. I live in Alameda. I have a business in Alameda. My son's graduating high school in Alameda. My teacher my wife is a teacher in Alameda. He retired a few years ago. I don't want to see alameda have to make decisions for economic reasons. I don't want to see us have to think about selling or swapping land or building homes simply to balance the budget. I don't want us to have to compromise our quality of life because the economics force us to do that. And as these things start to grow and as those numbers start to go up, if we're not prepared for it, we might find ourselves in a position where we do things that maybe aren't the kind of things that we would prefer to have to do. But we don't have a choice as we have to balance the budget. And I think the citizens appreciate that, that you individually all live in Alameda. You appreciate that being prepared for this lessens the chances that we have to make decisions that maybe aren't entirely what we would prefer to do, but are a matter of necessity rather than a matter of desire. And that's why I've been talking about this for so long. And I think it's very important at this juncture also to think about that, because three years from now, we're going to have some very difficult conditions to deal with. So with that, if there's anything else I can help you out with, I'm happy to. Again, I think Steph's giving you a really good look at this, and I'll offer up to you individually, too. I know many of you taking me up on my time. I'm happy to talk with you individually, if there's anything I can help you out on this. But I think you're in very good hands with the presentation you've seen tonight in terms of the information, the quality information. So thank you. Thank you. Kevin Curry, did you want to speak? Thanks. Mayor Council staff. I also wanted to thank Elena and all the department heads and the staff for putting this presentation together. And in particular, I think it's great that the fellows from NH Advisors for their expertize to really, you know, provide a little bit more guidance in this area. As the Treasurer said, you know, we've talked about this for a very, very long period of time and we were on a committee that basically predicted this was going to happen. And I'm glad now there's some. Uh, if I had some other outside guys and, you know, they're involved with it. But the bottom line is, as the city manager put it, when you get out a few more years, when it's a $10 million deficit, you know, it gets worse. The next column over that's not there becomes worse and it becomes worse. And as the Treasurer mentioned. You have to pay it. So? So, I mean, for everybody, we're citizens here. We love aluminum for everybody that's at home. What does that mean? You have to pay it? Well, it means you have to really pay it. So all the other great services that we're used to having as citizens of Alameda. They have to start getting cut because there's not the money to provide all of these, you know, the dollars to provide all these services. And if on the page on page number 12, there is a there's a nice diagram that shows what the. With the other two apartments other than fire and police, what they get, it's what their expenditures are. It's $22.9 million. Elena did a really great presentation. I don't know, maybe six weeks ago. And one of the slides in there, which I think is a really great slide, it says estimated prices increase. The public safety per se increase or the dollar amount projected for 2223 is $23 million. So the projected increase, which I have a feeling is going to be pretty doggone accurate, is what we pay now for all of the departments now. So in 22, 23, how do the other departments get money? How do they get it? So I mean, there's there's you guys have, you know, you guys got a really hard job. You know, you guys didn't start the ball rolling, but now the ball's kind of in your court. And there was another slide that was up here on 23. I believe it said me find 23 because I think it's important. Alameda Response Only Critical Hires Using General Fund dollars. There is your opportunity to at least put a little bit of a dent in this. Going forward. There's going to be departments asking for money. There's been an apartment that asked for money three weeks ago. That's something that you can do right now and be aware of the nice presentation. Where we. Saw from the other fellows about when you pay money for somebody, what the percentage costs of the benefits are. This is the snowball effect that I believe has happened over this period of time. And so you guys have all the figures. You guys are smart people. You guys got to make the tough decision. But sometimes it's some real smart person in this room once said, sometimes you have to know when to say no. And so good luck. I'm going to live here forever. I know you guys love Alameda. Please do the best you can and keep Alameda as great as it is. Thank you. Hey, if we're. If that was the last speaker, we can continue. So we obviously didn't. We should spend time on that slide that Kevin Kennedy. Just Kevin pretty high chart. No, no, no. Not the famous page 23. Yes, that's where we're headed. Okay. Perfect. So we didn't want to sugarcoat this because this is like the most critical issue that is going to face Alameda and it's going to face every city in California. And we as we have made strides in the past to help address that. But it's getting critical and it's going to get more critical as CalPERS can change their assumptions in one year, that will have a dramatic effect and double what we owe in our unfunded liability. So Almeida's response just from a short term response is we need to, as we have all said and we said at the beginning, our number one responsibility, our fiduciary responsibility is to have fiscal sustainable, structurally balanced budget to our best possible ability. And that could mean and it's our recommendation that we look only at critical hires using general funds. Special funds are easier for us to justify because it is not our general fund dollars. Those are tend to be outside funds like the sewer funds or the gas tax that are actually increasing. But we have to really look critically at general fund any use of general fund dollars. Our use of one time funds for one time effort. And what we mean by that is that every one time fund should have a efficiency in the future. So efficiencies, hopefully three years and beyond, so we can start being more cost effective in the future. And then focus on reducing our expenses over the next two years. What we said is we're going to bring h a back. Immediately after this budget is adopted so we can start doing options for the Council consideration and spend the next two years as our number one focus of how are we going to address this going forward? One. Thing I'd like to have the council look at is a policy that does something along the lines of every time we have a budget surplus, X percent, 50% goes automatically into either whatever you decide, the Section 115 Trust or CalPERS or a combination. But it goes to addressing this issue directly. So we're going to be seeing a chart that has our contracts that carry out that we've already committed to. Our country have current contracts that are multiyear contracts. Yes. And that goes to your question earlier. But those are contracts that this council can look at as they come up. And we can also those are less important, from my perspective, than this big looming unfunded liability for pensions and OPEB. Okay. But the. But. But that is the result of contracts that we currently have. Oh, you mean labor contract, correct? Yes. I thought you meant contracts that we were talking about. So. So do we. Okay. So when you look at our contracts, people that work at our library, for instance, do we have a long term contract with them? Are we committed to having so many librarians, people that work at the library? They have a multiyear contract with them. So you're talking about our future contract negotiation for current? No. No. Currently, do we currently have a long term contract? Which departments do we have long term contracts with? All our contracts with all our employees are long term. Isn't it? By bargaining unit more than. Short miscellaneous contracts are up in December 2018 on the safety ones our 2021. Okay. So are we going to have some kind of chart that shows things like that that we are already committed to? Yeah. And I think if you look back at that chart that we showed tonight, that also includes our. Our pension and liability and benefits going forward for the next 30 years. Projections that are obviously based on our. Current contracts, the. Five year the five year forecast includes all of the contract obligations that we have. Okay. So I like a chart that actually calls out the different departments and contracts that we currently have so we can see what we're committed to and what we aren't. Because at some point, if I heard or. Public speakers correctly, we may very well have to cut what we can cut and some things we won't be able to cut. So we need to be prepared to know where our cuts, where the some choices will be made for us because we won't be able we will already be contractually committed to those. On in the second bullet down from in addition to looking at our pension and designated reserves, we have a bullet in there for future contract negotiations. The bullet above that also looks at our excess dollars for we have one closed pension fund that we are reducing over time. And so another policy choice this council can make is to those savings or it's about 2 million annually, could be also put into resolving this problem on an annual basis. Okay. But that's not the problem. The problem is. Although that what we're trying to do is help close the gap, whether it's 2 million at a time or 5 million at a time, it's something that we should have counsel look at. But the increase in the fuel goes up from 17.5 to 40 million per year. So you can talk about 2 million. That's not the numbers. That's not close to the numbers. So we I do want to have a chart that has all of our contracts long term that we're already committed to. So then we can see really what the problem is. Or bring back a chart that has our pension and benefit costs going forward with under reflecting our current contracts. No, no, that's not the question. That's not the ask. We currently have contracts that we have are committed to. Yes. That I'd like to see a chart of those. Because what I think is that anything that we don't have a contract for. We're going to be cutting. Mayor. QUESTION Yes. MEMBER Ashcroft. So, Miss, come back, if you could talk to us a little bit about these, the closed pension dollars that could be directed to fund our pension obligations. Can we give a little explanation of what that means and how we could do it? Certainly. Yes, I think so. But it's very quiet. So when the council approved on the same night, actually the. The 115 Trust for OPEB and Pension at that same time were presented funding policy for the pension and OPEB. One of the items that is in the policy is to use any excess dollars in the closed pension plans and contribute those funds into the trust. So Council already taking that action and determined that yes, you are willing to do that. And as part of the budget that we're going to be presenting to you, we incorporate that access. In essence, you froze the dollar amount contribution. So from. From. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to cut you off so you can tell us how much we've put in from these. So it's about $2 million a year that we've contributed, and it's about because we have passing of certain retirees or their dependents. So we have about difference. Um, currently about, I believe, 400,000 that has been accumulated over a period of few years that would go in as a contribution. It would be a one time. So on the ongoing basis, that amount may not be as high, but that's going to be part of the one time original contribution in. And so as the benefit payments and those close plants reduce, we will continue keeping that dollar amount contribution from general fund the same and that greater delta is going to continue going into a pension component to. Redirect it to 115 or whatever it is. Correct. Okay. So, I mean, my feeling is there is no one magic bullet, but I'll take any money that we can get to help pay down that liability. And if I can just stay on the mike for a minute. So I know I've talked to our city manager about a couple months back. I represent Alameda on the League of California Cities East Bay Division, and we had an entire evening that was dedicated to the OPEB and CalPERS liabilities. And, and I know I can't remember which city, though, because one of the speakers was a city manager from Concord. Concord. Again, they have a policy in Concord. I believe that the council adopted that. It sounded quite attractive that whenever there's one time many I want to say it's 50% of it automatically goes to paying down that debt, whatever it is. I think she said the other half goes into infrastructure now. You know, we might decide that maybe a little percentage could go for something on a one time basis, but I think it is going to take that kind of discipline and just, you know, programing in like an automatic deduction from your paycheck every pay period that just goes straight to to savings and you never see it. I would you know, I hope that we can come to that some up to adopt a policy like that when when the decision time comes. Member matter. So just to follow up the comments on the closed pension dollar excess, we put the policy in place when we set up the trust. Has there been any set aside from that close pension to between then and now? And it's kind of waiting to be a deposit or it's an automatic, it automatically goes. So we just signed all the paperwork for the trust. So once the accounts are set up, the goal is to actually move the funds over. But again. When would that be? I can ask trust pars when the accounts are going to be done, but as soon as they are available, we can do that. That was approved by council on March 21st. So in a month, three months. Six months should be probably sufficient. Thank you. That. But it will be automatic. We won't have to have a council action to say, Oh, we should do this. It's done. No. Because you already have a policy in place. Thank you. And they discussed the pie chart that had the 23 million, or is that what that number was? Other than our public safety that we currently spend on everything else. Um. I think it was page 13 or something like that. 17. Let me see. They pitched 12. So the total money, money from general fund that is not spent on public safety, do you have that total dollar amount? Well, I'm going to use Kevin and say it's 22.9 million. 22 point what was it? Point nine. 3 million. So let's say 23 million. Okay. And then I want to jump to the other chart that has the purrs you will increase on an annual basis. There it is, page 19. Okay. See on page at your 2018, these numbers are. 17.5. But before you know it. Let's just jump to 2030. What is it, 20, 22? 23. You go from 17. 227 to 37. On an annual basis. The amount of the hour nonpublic safety costs were 23 million per year. So I don't quite understand how we're going to be able to have anything other than public safety and still not have enough money to pay for the fuel. So the impact wouldn't on the general fund specifically, even though it's going to be high in probably the most, it's not the entire amount that shown on this graph. This graph representing A represents the entire city. So. We would have to extrapolate the component that relates to general fund provided safety is general fund. So primarily, I would say 100% of it, we can assume by portion of it would not necessarily only come from general fund, it would come also from other funds in the city. But yes, you're correct, those payments are accelerating. And I can say that even CalPERS representatives say that the biggest impact or full impact of this change in the discount rate would not be necessarily felt within the next two years. It's 5 to 7 years. Right? You can see it. You can see the jump. Okay. So if you're if you're only looking. So our budget actually is not that large. Right. We're 80 million or whatever it is. So if you jump to the 23 million, I mean, this increase. With our current expend our current expenses, not even anticipating any increase on an annual basis. I don't think you have to project out that many years and not have funding for those things if you want to go back to the pie chart. What are the things that are in that pie that we're not going to have money for? And that's assuming you take a library. Recreation and parks, all these other things. Right. And assuming that's where you take it from. As opposed to our. You can take it from any place on that pie chart. Okay. So I don't know if you all can hear it. Do you want to sit. Speaking to the mic clearly? Well, I mean, you're making the assumption that you're going to take it all from other. Other weaknesses. Right. You have the entire. Hi. To to look at. That's right. Okay. So I was we have long term contracts, right. That we have a commitment through 2022. Is that what you said earlier on our public safety contracts, 20 2021, 2021. So at least we know. And we have going to. Right. Yeah. And we have. Yes. So that was why I was talking about having a clear chart of what contracts we currently have, how far they go, because you're going to see we have a long term commitment on the public safety contract through 2021, apparently. Right. And then when you go back and forth, 2021, it's already starting to climb. So you might be able to extrapolate just based on our current contracts. Right. And I think but I think also the discussion of right now, you're looking at expenditures. You're not looking at revenues. You're not looking at your increases in revenues. You're not looking at the things that we can be doing between now and then. So I think the point that the city manager made on this is I mean, it's not to try and be alarmist, but to be aware of it and. And I think staff is mate has made a commitment that we're going to be working towards solutions. If you look at 2021 and I don't want to be alarmist, I actually want to be real, though. If you look at 2021, you're got you jumped from 17.5 to 27.5 for this projection. That's not alarmist. These are real numbers that we apparently paid consultants to come here and show us. So I think it's important we do look at these charts. So if you look out through the 2021, you see a jump of around 10 million per year. Of of expenses that we have to write a check for. So, so and then in regards to our revenues during that time, we did not see that climb. But you're right. Based upon if you look at based upon the projections that staff presented with which. Assumes we will never have a downward correction, that we're going to have a steady increase. Yeah, that was just on the transfer tax. But but these are things that we are committed to having to pay even during a correction year. That's correct. So but again, I just want to remind everybody that the chart that chart CalPERS chart you're looking at is the entire city. So what? And we're only referring in this case to general fund. General Fund is not going to be paying for benefits or increase in benefits that are associated with staff that are being paid out of restricted funds. Okay. Do you want to come back with a chart that speaks to that, separate that clearly what the city's recommendation is? We could do our best to extrapolate. Remember, I never remember how the. Revenues that fund those other funds don't climb at the rate of. I'm trying to. Say. So I think I think it's real. We we get it. And having been here during the downturn and having to having to reduce staff, because that's how you people get laid off. That's how you balance the budget. So that's that's the that's the real part of it was when you need to make that payment, as the Treasurer said, that payment is not an option, it has to be paid. But what's different is the significance of these numbers. Okay. And that's why we have our work cut out for us on the next step. So I'd like to get to the next step, to the real numbers, and let's continue. It's the. Answer. Okay. And then so we've already talked about this one. We're looking at how do we protect our quality of life, how do we look at technology infrastructure to reduce expenses in the future, increase our efficiencies? How do we also look at creating a. Vibrant community. Maintaining what we have in our aging infrastructure and protecting the environment. Next. And so when we go back to the beginning of the funds, the one time funds that are currently available over the 25% that we are looking at as a conservative amount that we should keep in the reserve. If you recall, it was 10.875 million. What we're going to be asking the council for is direction on some of these one time council efforts for funds. And it goes to what we put in there was our total unfunded liability for years as 163 million. And that is based on and this goes back to Councilmember Otis question is what do we consider best practice? Cities typically consider 80% as a best practice for unfunded liability, because I think, as our consultant said, this is a snapshot. And so depending on the rate of return of CalPERS, it can go up and down dramatically. We also want direction and want to look at additional funding for OPEB, other post-employment benefits trust, and that currently is a need of $90 million. And then also from a community perspective and we had we have the results of our budget challenge that I mentioned earlier. We have it's been up, I think, a week, and we have 1100 responses so far. And there are a lot of strong support for all of our. Values, including investment in the historic civic core. And then we also have the purchase of up remnant parcels that go from Tilden way through Jean Sweeney open space, their narrow property that from the railroad that we could look at purchasing. And this is a relatively small amount of funds to enhance and make turn parkland back to the community. And in particular, it looks at some parcels at Jean Sweeney Open Space Reserve. Can you explain that number? GRANT Plus 800,003. Million. It's quite a delta. Yeah. It's there's a, a grant that we got for children way. And then the other is based on appraisals that are done and we've done our appraisal and now you yuppie is doing their appraisal and it's somewhere in. Union with the Union Pacific Railroad because this is old railroad right away. Right? Right. Right. So that is going to be coming back to council as soon as we hear back from Union Pacific. Thank you. And then we also have guns. And going forward, looking at ongoing funds and as the council has said previously, we do budget conservatively. We are trying to look long term and be conservative in our ongoing funds. We do have some recent additions compared to our last two year budget. One is the Fire Prevention Bureau with three new staff that was adopted in April. The Friends of the Animal Alameda Animal Shelter is anticipated to come at the next council meeting for council consideration. And at $804,000, we ask a. Question on that. Yes. But that's not an incremental increase. There's some that we give already, right? Yes. On the animal shelter, it's a. Good point we give about it increases with cost of living. But right now it's about 358,000. So we subtract that out. So the incremental. As. 400 415. And the first one doesn't reflect the income that is going to be generated has partially offset it. You write, these are not net but gross. There's infrastructure investment of we had a city facilities report and again this is. There funds that if we don't invest in the community, this unfunded maintenance will increase. Those maintenance costs will increase over time. So we're looking at things that are supposed to be prudent in the long run. The Homeless Assistance Program. If you look at the cost of one homeless person from a social services and fire response and police response time, it can be very costly rather than providing direct service to housing those individuals. If you look at it from a financial point of view, it's this is legitimate funding to spend. It is also a high priority both in the community and on the council. The Alameda Police Department is receiving or could receive a grant for approximately half this amount. They have received the grant and they are willing to contribute it to this project. And so the net on this is 61,000. And that is for. We'll talk later on in the program more specifically about that. And then there was a request for a housing trust fund. Which could be in the neighborhood of what we're paying for the rent stabilization program, which is one about 1.3 million. Annually. So this next section is we're going to ask, I mentioned at the very beginning that there were eight department requests and all of these requests are looked at from a long term perspective. There were. Several requests that I just want to highlight that did not come in from six different departments. So the city attorney's office and the city clerk's office did not have any funding requests outside of what they got previously, so no additional requests. Finance and H.R. also are not asking for any additional funds this year, although there is a technology ask that directly assists and improves the efficiency in finance in h.r. Base for use is not asking for any additional funds and AMP is not it either? We had a public speaker four back on page 25. Donna Lieberman or maybe what we could do if if the speaker. What I'd like to do is to go through have all the departments go through. And look. At them holistically. So you're not saying yes to one without looking at what the next request is? I just want to let her speak. We won't we're not making any direction right now. But then she can speak and not be here for the next how many hours? Okay. Yeah. I have to the light so I won't be able to see you. Thank you for this opportunity. I'm here as the president of the Downtown Business Association and specifically to talk about what is the fate and future of the Carnegie Library. The Carnegie the outside is stunning. The inside is awesome. That word, you know, is overused but doesn't really describe this incredible building. This building is about history, it's about art, it's about architecture. And it's about a rare and unique experience. You only have to walk into. The door to feel that it's a very special building and art and architecture have a tremendous effect on our everyday lives. Resilient communities need. Access to. Good quality physical infrastructure. Where people can bond and connect places that enhance. Our opportunities for social interaction and enhancing our quality of life. There is no getting around the impact of the design and architecture of this building. Being able to give us that specific opportunity by not just saving it but by inviting us in. Why is this important. To let me just downtown. So if this. Gem of a rare. Space is current is. Completely or even partially. Used as a public space for art. For the Alameda Museum, treasures for pinball machines. The fact is. That it invites us in and inside to be odd, wooed, educated and inspired. Almeida's downtown needs to always. Position itself as a. Resilient community to avoid economic decline. Our downtown has a challenge in order to. Maintain its viable and vital future, and some of that is in. Why do people want to come to our downtown? Why do our why is our community going to want to come there in the future? And why are people from off island going to come here? Especially when the base starts to build up and offers retail and restaurants and recreation, and so do all those other four or five projects on the. Waterfront offering the same things. So why come downtown? I believe the people will come and they'll continue. To come if we. Add value to the. Community by the decisions we're making now to make sure that we are resilient in our downtown, how do we accomplish is improving the downtown's competitive edge, making it a. Destination. And certainly the Carnegie would contribute. To this embracing the arts and culture and the creativity not only of our heritage, but of our local community. By celebrating it in this building, by attracting new and visiting populations. Giving them more reasons to come, play, stay and spend. Their money in great places, hopefully helping our budget out. Drawing the attention to. Customers away from that one dimensional shopping experience that they're used to having before to a trip that's more valuable and culturally anchored. Downtowns across the country are. Being revitalized because our society is seeking something. New. They're seeking community. Places of authentic. I almost. Had it. 3 minutes. Sorry. Places of authentic experiences no longer homogenized shopping and. Buying, but authentic experiences offering. Uniqueness. A sense of place. A place of belonging. So how can our. Alameda Downtowns continue to promote. Attract anchor this sense of wanting to be here? If we cannot. Elevate our offerings, our values and our uniqueness. Invite us in. Invite us into the Carnegie, this cultural destination. Make it a place of work and experience a legacy decision. To honor its cultural value to our community now and in the future. Andrew. Andrew Carnegie is quoted to have lived by this. All is well since all grows better. So let's grow better. Invite us in. And as one of our speakers said. Tonight, keep Alameda. As great as it is. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Do we have any other public speakers besides. All right, so the Archers are here. Did you want to speak at this point or did you want. It's another ten pages. The presentation before we get to Richmond Park. Your choice. You could speak now or do you want to wait? You want us to jump to rec and park? We take that department out of order. Maybe. What would you like to do? If you want. But. And Norma's eating her time, too, Lil. So he'll have 6 minutes. Thank you. You're welcome, Mr. Arness. We have to be up for 630 tomorrow for the golf for the children at the golf course. So we're happy to be here this evening. They always say. The best laid plans of mice and men are due to come true today. So I'm going to try to take my time in the time of my wife. To address two things. One will be a verbal presentation. And a second one will be a thing that happened today to me, which I think you're going to be interested in. And you will hear later from our Director of Recreation and Parks regarding our request. What I plan to do during my verbal communication is basically this. Probably outside the three arches, my left, which is he and Frank and Trish, who know Alameda very well. Alameda is a third city in L.A. in California to be recognized as a recreation commission beside Los Angeles, number one, San Francisco to Alameda, number three. 1907. That was done. Over the years, the city of Alameda is known for its recreational attitude in all aspects, from water to land in terms of James and the estuary in the bay. They have been recognized by the California Parks and Recreation Society. In the early sixties as one of five top recreation cities in California. Now that is no mean feat. That is in a tribute to the people that laid the foundation for you today. And here is what I'm trying to say. Parks and Recreation are a vital part of this community. Nothing. Nothing means more to me than the Parks and Recreation. I love all the other department fire, police, public works, you name it, and they will tell you I've supported them. However, there's a definite flaw here that's evolving, that has evolved. And I hope that you up there will finally take the time and horsepower to change it. 72% of your budget goes to police, fire and public works. A piddly 5% go to recreation of parks. That is what you call taking it to the lowest level. The City Council in the past 15 to 20 years have cared less about recreation and parks and to prove the point, they wanted to sell the golf course. As you well know, the par three. And until I put on measure and 92, they wanted to sell off ten acres of the South Court of the Jack Clark. And what happens when you get the money, you spend it. After that's gone, you have nothing. But she'll always have a part. You go to San Diego, you got Balboa Park, you go to San Francisco, Golden Gate. You go to New York. You have Central. You go to many places to New Orleans, which are rife with parks and playgrounds. So what I'm going to do now in terms of telling you what has happened in the past. We're very proud of that history. I'm going to have passed out. Q Which will be a visual? Just play, and I'd like you to follow me in it and I'll take up most of my time at that. So with the help of my wife here, she's going to give these out, I think. No, I'll take it. This is the mayor of Spencer and to Frank and. Please follow me in the presentation. And you will see all the history done by the very capable Woody Meyer. I do not know how many of you have read this book or have even seen it. It has a wonderful history of the city, of the parks. It tells you where the parks were. It tells you about the homes that were built on it. It tells you about the history of the Neptune beaches and parks. Mastic Senior Center and Alameda in general. It is a most informative recreation book. Yeah, it's been posted by any city in the state of California. Page by page. Park by park, trim center, waterways, golf courses, you name it. I can see you are very enthralled with him. Thank you. You should be. Haven't been a recreation leader in the city of Oakland across the bay which couldn't hold a candle to us. Anyhow, said that in this booklet I'm going to have you refer to Page. 55. Page 55. In there, you'll see parks and facilities. Oh, that's my 3 minutes. Now it's up to my wife, and she'll certainly assist me by being quiet like she always does. Oh. That's already made it just. What I'm showing you here is this. These are actual facts. From 1995 till the president, we have taken on 11 new park areas. In here. We have had not added one person. On a path to maintenance. In almost 20 years, we have not hire a park person. That is death to all part. You cannot buy a home and maintain it with a nice lawn and flowers and new roof unless you put money aside to take care of it. Why people do this. Something I can't understand. I would like some of you to do what I have done for 20 years. This is a fact known. The last 20 years, I have put in personally between 501000 hours a year volunteering at our parks, painting bleachers, cleaning toilets, restrooms, playing slide, tightening bowls, you name it. Not only tens of thousands of people come to these parks a year. I'm talking hundreds of thousands go by any park in the morning and see the mothers congregate there with their children, getting ready for a lunch and breakfast. And her husband. Why should people having picnics? Why should people just laying down sleeping? Watch Washington and Lincoln Park on the weekends where there are sports programing. Hundreds of thousands of people. You don't get it. And I want to reiterate. Alameda is known for its recreation and parks. And I quote this to be a fact. Whenever surveys were taken by the late David Kauffman as the Elevator Times Star, they'd have a survey done about every five years. Recreation and parks were always number one by the people. Always, without a doubt. If you pick up a paper on a weekend, it looked at home for sale. Look at them. What? What do they say? They don't say located near a fire house, police station, whatever they say. Located near a nice park. Located near a school. This is what you represent. You represent the people. You represent people that use our facility every day. So I am here tonight. And I have to tell you, I'm getting near the end of my talk. I understand. Yeah. I was up there like you for 11 years. People would come before you with a wish list, like a kid in a candy store. I'll take one of those. I'll take one of these. Give me this. Give me that. I did it for 11 years in a castle. Yeah. When I came on the council, we were at a deficit after Prop 13. And when I left with Bill Norton, we had a 25 to $30 million reserve because we watched what we were doing and we budget it properly. So we're asking you to look at some of the requests in here by other departments, which if I was up there, I would certainly question. But I'm not going to because they have their own reasons. But. The park workers. I do not know if you'd understand if. You just aren't. For example, let's say each one of you assigned to Linkin Park, you don't do Linkin Park. You might do it in the morning. Get in your car and go do Woodstock. The next day you're Linkin Park. You go out there, Godfrey, you jump around. You jump around like a fly on a window. They don't keep you in one place. And so therefore, the park is not getting the attention. And if there's one thing you love to hear, it's people say nice things. Now, in closing. You are going to be opening up the gene sweetie part. You will all be there that day with a shovel in your hand and you're going to be busting buttons all over your chest. How proud you are. But unless you find the damn thing properly, it's going to look like the railroad tracks they are today. Lousy. So unless you have a commitment to take on the additional 35 acres that the city will take on to this coming year, not only with the Gene Sweeney Park, unless you are willing and able to take this on, then don't fund the park. Just leave it later. But I don't think that you're intent. I think that this council is a very visible and viable council and will certainly hold true to our commitment. You ran with that on your platforms. Every one of you. You said Jeff, you said that. Stick to it. Let's not be a term what we call a cheap. I'm trying to think of the right word. It's not nefarious, but it certainly amounts to a show that a mayor, member of the city council staff, I respect all of you at all times. You have a tough decision to make. And if you think the decisions are tough now, you wait on two years. When you see that first pension come in, you're really going to be upstream. Thank you so much. I always feel so welcome here. You are all very good, decent people. I know you mean well. Oh, by the way, I forgot that this was a caveat. Today's Chronicle. Peter today. That's when I started to say my talk. San Francisco, number one in the nation. For Parks. And if they have a park within walking distance of 10 minutes. Did you read that? Well, let me give you something else. Our city fathers planned it. You could take a circle, stick it in any park in Alameda. Frank Franklin, the park. Draw a one mile circle. You'll hit Washington. You think in Washington you'll hit Longfellow. Stick it in Longfellow, you'll hit Woodstock. Every park is within one mile of a veteran or citizen of the city. One mile. Godfrey Kellman Harrington on Bay Farm Island, it's in here today. And I would just like to turn it to page three. And then did Laura get the bell ready in the lower right hand corner, it says. It speaks volumes about this city's commitment to open space. Lower right hand column. And finally, they end up saying these parks are not just nice amenities. They are very important for the public and environmental health that make for a better and strong community. Don't let it get past you. Readers, I'll be looking for you to the dedication of this park and others. I'm counting on you. I'd have a real look at his budget. There are some frills in here, but. That's up to me. Thank you so much. On behalf of my wife, Shay. Thank you, dear. And for everything. Thanks. Enormous. Okay. I'm sure. The kids. Of when my kids went to school, they. They're grown young. Men now or an older man now. And they still. Remember their times at the park. They still come up to Lill and say, Gee, the parks are just. Our our childhood. Was the best. And so think about that. Thank you very. Much for your time. Have a wonderful evening. And we're actually going to take a five minute recess. Thank you. This came. We're on a roll here. We're almost done. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Potter. Okay. Well, I'm glad that we took a break, because I was wondering how I. Was going to follow Lill. So it was good that we did this. And, um. Do you have a present for us? Well, the one thing I can say, that's good. I think about our department, which is community development. And I'm Debbie Potter, the director is that we are almost exclusively a non general fund funded department. So I'm going to talk broadly. Jill mentioned that the departments that are before you this evening are departments that have requests to be made for for the upcoming budget cycle. So we are requesting 2.75 fte eas non general fund funded coming from our building and planning fund. And the first is that we are requesting a one new building inspector. We have seen over the last two years a 40% increase in building permit valuation and a 17% increase in the number of inspections over the last two years. And we expect that trend to continue. And our goal with the new inspectors to move from 2 to 3 day response time to a same day response on inspections is our goal with our new inspector. We are also requesting one new permit, TEC three, which is a permit check for planning who would help out at the permit center, which is open from 730 to 334 days a week and is going to the new permit. Tech for planning will help us re to redeploy our planner ones and planner tools so that we can get to work on a number of the referrals that the Council has directed our way. Things like bird safe buildings. Heritage oaks. Some of the other projects that we think we can really focus our attention on if we have a permit. Tech Who is. I'm relieving some of the workload for our planner, ones and twos. And then lastly, the 0.75 is an i.t systems analyst. And we do everything our whole planning process which is also connected to AMP and fire police, public works, SLA. We have not been able to keep up with all of the upgrades and emerging technologies. We've just been so busy and we are committed to trying to go green and move to electronic plan check, which we think will save personally a couple of thousand or at least a couple hundred trees a year if you saw the rolls of plans that come in. So electronic plan check is huge for us. We want to improve our permit tracking more online permits, mobile inspections. But without the IT support, we really can't get there. And that position is is one FTE, 75% of which would be paid from from building and planning. And then 0.25 of that position would be paid from the general fund. And Carolyn Hogg, the IT director, is going to talk about that. But the 0.25 would go for citywide technology work, lots of laser fish and GIS work. That really needs to be done. And then the the last thing when it comes to staffing is that we're requesting a reassignment of an existing general fund funded position from 50% to 100% time on SSA Hrb and the Collaborative for Youth Families excuse me, and children. And really we with the referrals that have been coming from council regarding the homeless, you know, the importance to be tackling the homeless policy for the city, the immigration services and policy and some of the other service requests that have been coming in. We do need the redeployment of of that position. As I mentioned, we are almost exclusively non general fund funded. This is a list of all the various revenue sources that fund our department. Our projection is a $7.3 million budget that goes up to a little over 8 million next year and then up to 8.2 million in 1819 . And that really reflects the increased staffing positions that that's being requested. And then just over half of our budget is spent on staff and then services and supplies is the other big 35% or so, which is our consultant contracts, our facade program, the marketing materials that we put together to fund economic development, those kinds of things. And I did go over our new request. I talked about our staffing, and then with staff comes the need to provide the inspector with a car and reconfigure the office. And we have a carryover request for a project that we didn't get to this year, but we plan to do next year. And then I just wanted to point out the public art, which is a general fund transfer. The upcoming public art ordinance is going to clarify that we want all the money that's collected coming into the art fund to go for actual public art so that the general fund would then cover the cost of administering the public art . That is the request, and that's an ongoing $10,000 a year to do the work to administer the public art fund. So that's a quick overview of the Community Development Department. And now I'm going to pass it over to Doug Long, the chief who's going to talk about the fire department. Thanks. But even in chief. Even Madame Mayor. Council Member. City Staff. The Gong Fire Chief. Okay. I'll start off with revenue for the fire department. So. Most of everything that we have is comes from the general fund. But. We gain revenues through our ambulance transports, our GMT fund reimbursements and our inspection fees. We get general fund support for our personnel costs and we receive funding through the SAFER Grant to fund. Six of our firefighters at this time. That grant is scheduled to run out in January of 2018. However, because we don't have all those positions filled, we've lost people in academies. If our extension to the grant is granted through FEMA, our funds for those firefighters will extend out to approximately January of 2019. So we can we can extend those funds out. Without without the extension. We're looking at about. $956,000 in overtime, which would cover that that year of of 1819 if the grant is extended. We are looking at about $398,000 in overtime that will be needed for five months and that will be a maximum amount based on sick leave usage and vacation leaves. We have our community paramedic and program, which is completely grant funded at this time. It goes until November of 17. At that time, if there is additional funding through Alameda County or Alameda Health Systems, who is funding it currently will continue with the pilot program. Our expectation is, is that program will be continued for another year as a pilot. We also receive funding for our CERT program, which is of Citizen Emergency Response Team. That is Alameda County Grant. We also receive. Funding for our senior safety program and. The $12,000 is for personnel costs, an additional $20,000, which we don't actually receive, or modifications for senior safety, which are grab rails and things like that. That's funded through the housing authority and a community development block grant. Before you move on, I want to ask on the ground, is there a commitment from the county to pay that for those years that you have here? Is that each year that they evaluate. Continually rolls over and we generally actually receive more than that. And I do highly recommend the program to anyone for you. You sign up, you take all these classes, and then we have a disaster. We will be calling you to step up. Our expenditures. Most of our expenditures are for personnel costs. We also have funding for our services and supplies. Capital outlay. In 1617, we purchased a ventilation prop for practicing ventilation drills. That was EMT funds. And the remainder is for the funding for the Fire Prevention Bureau. Also have debt service for our for also funding I bank loan for our new fire station EOC an internal loan for vehicles. The Fire Department's request going forward to continue to provide the service that we do for the citizens of Alameda. We have some vehicle requests. We have an aging fleet. First requests, which would come from the general fund, is for $922,000. And that would replace the existing engine three. It would move down to a reserve status. And the oldest engine that we have would be retired, which is 26 years old and nine years past its maximum life for our fleet manager with the city. A second request is for replacing an ambulance. It is currently 21 years old, which is 13 years beyond its maximum life. And. Not replacing these vehicles will continue to have high maintenance cost or the inability to actually put these vehicles in service. We're finding that they're so old, it's actually hard to find parts when they do break down. Our third request, which will be for from General Fund for a division chief, which would start in the second year of the budget 1819, which would be a division chief slash fire marshal to oversee the new Fire Prevention Bureau and the and disaster preparedness with the construction of the Emergency Operations Center. Continuing and scheduling. Training. Resiliency for the city. There is a lot of interaction with outside agencies to develop a plan and coordinate. The needs of the city. Before you move on. On the not on the engine. That's 26 years old. Do you look at mileage on. Those are just years. We look at mileage and years. Per fleet services manager. We should have our our. Engine companies front line for 12 years and then in a reserve status for five years. But means they are the backup. And when the front line vehicle goes in for a service or is damaged or needs repairs or for whatever reason that reserve is is able to move up. Our reserves are also used for recall personnel when we have large events and we need additional staffing and additional units put into service are recalled personnel, staff, those reserve rigs. Okay. So I'm like. Sorry. I'm sorry. On the engine. I just want to before you move on, you. Got to the criteria is total life is 17 years or 85,000 miles. Okay. So then at some point, can you share how many thousands of miles are on this that that kind of information, not just the years. It is part of the some friends or whatever. Yeah. I mean, how many miles. Is. Good practice or whatever and how many miles are on these? I don't have the miles for the reserve engine, which is a 1991. Your engine is 26 years old, which is nine years beyond its maximum life. The Pierce Engine and existing Engine three is a 2007. It has 56,000 miles on it. We'd like to get that into its reserve status so that it still has remaining life in it as a reserve unit. This Engine three was scheduled to be replaced in the last two year budget. We were asked to bump it to this budget so that we would spread out our vehicle purchases so that they wouldn't all be due at one time because they are costly and. You know, maintaining the service and staying on the schedule will keep us from having these large costs for maintenance. I was asked by Councilmember Ashcroft when I came back for an additional $879,000 for outside vehicle repairs. What we can do to eliminate that happening in the future. And it's it's staying on schedule with with the maintenance and replacing them when they need to be replaced. Remember Ashcroft. So I'm speaking of vehicles, and I should probably know this, but last month, the council approved the personnel for the Fire Prevention Bureau. I think it was three positions, and we also approved the purchase of a couple of vehicles for the inspectors. And those are just like cars. They're not emergency vehicles, is that correct? They are emergency vehicles. What we do is we we purchase the same vehicle at the authorization recommendation of the fleet manager so that they are all the same. That standardizes the fleet and without them being. Position specific. We can move them throughout the fire department. As far as mileage and age so that we get the full life out of them, so that if they're a vehicle that's starting to rack up some miles, we can transfer that vehicle to a person who. Doesn't doesn't rack up as many miles so that we get the full life out of the vehicles. Okay. And I actually was thinking in terms of of pools, because I think it was Miss Potter in the Community Development Department. There's a couple of vehicles I think budgeted for or being requested for those inspectors. And so I you know, I realize we'd be crossing lines, but does the city do we do any sort of a vehicle pool where there's you know, if you need a car, you check and see the availability or you schedule it ahead of time. And so that's something I'd like to be considered and maybe hear more information coming back. And the other thing is, I think we all need to be mindful of environmental impacts of our our transport and and especially when we're talking about building inspections. Those are short run trips. Those are hard on engines, too. It's you know. And that's part of the emergency, right. Vehicle purchases. It's my understanding that they have larger rotors for the brakes. They just they just tend to last longer. We have the week manager here. And so the whole details of I. Mean, I try to stay at a 30,000 foot level at this point, but I'd like us to consider emission free vehicles and smaller vehicles. And if, you know, if it doesn't have to do double and triple duty, it could we could we save some money and replacement costs over time? And we when we get to public works, there's a good story there about their request for pool vehicles because they use a lot of pool vehicles. It really depends on the job. And if you're an inspector, it's a very different kind of need for a vehicle than if you're someone who goes out sporadically. But Public Works has decided to do electric vehicles, and so they are postponing their requests for vehicles to year number two and doing electric vehicle. Plug in areas in year one. That sounds very enticing. I look forward to hearing more about that when they do their presentation. Okay. Thank you. For matter. I see. I'm Chief. If you don't get the division chief, what is it that is happening today that you won't be able to do? We're getting ready to build out a fire prevention bureau as we're starting to get into the nuts and bolts of what that looks like. What we're seeing is we have the what we like to call boots on the ground, the people that are going to be out doing the work. What we are falling short on is the person who is going to coordinate that work and write the policy or that work through the analysis of the city. As far as where are our hazards, what kind of a plan and program do we need in place? So if you don't take the city, this person, what would you do? It'll it'll be a shared responsibility. My concern is, as we start looking at what a fire marshal does, having that fragmented. I understand. What will you do if you don't get the person? It is. It's a shared responsibility right now and will continue to be shared. If that person is not, it will be shared. What I'm looking at now is, is if we have some overtime savings in this year for the first month. Of the Fire Prevention Bureau in this fiscal year. I would I would move somebody into their full time to try to get at least an existing person, an existing person. So there'll be no new purge burden that comes with. No, no. But they'd be coming from someplace and without funding at the beginning of the next fiscal year, they would go back. And if the, the, the no request was without the request budget gets approved. Are there going to be any services that you're currently doing that are going to not be done like fire prevention? Because the city council I've seen a couple of presentations now where it says the city council restored the Fire Prevention Bureau. The city council doesn't. Remove the Fire Prevention Bureau. It doesn't restore it. The fire department and the city manager do that. We just approve the head count. And I that's a very important point for the public to understand. And that's why I'm asking the question is. In the Corps Fire Services. Ah. If we approve a budget that does not have your request in it for personnel, what is. What is going to be what service is going to be cut today, if any, or we're going to just continue with the service that we have. You will you will have the service that you have for emergency response. Okay. We will not build a robust fire prevention bureau. We have people to get out and do the inspections and someone that's going to train to do the plan checks. But what we're going to fall short on is somebody that's going to coordinate. All of that work going forward. I think we'll have a lot of things that fall through the cracks as far as trying to stay up on adopting current fire codes, knowing what directives are coming down from the the state fire marshal. Having somebody in meetings with city staff to to go over plans for whether it's Alameda Point or the Northern waterfront. I would hate to have something in those in those plans in development get missed because we don't have a fire marshal to attend and have input on on those meetings. But we do have a fire marshal now. Right. So I would assume that city management would try and work that and then come to council if. Something is falling behind, like the inspections that fell behind. You wouldn't let that happen again, right? Right. And then this request, just to highlight it is for 18, 19, not four, 17, 18. So the request is for next. Question is still the same. And with the plant. Yes, but what the plan is, is there is five division chiefs right now. What we're looking at going forward, if is one of those is funded. Right. Funded. Grant funded and we anticipate that grant ending. And so that's why this 306 would replace that position if that position goes away because of lack of grant funds. And that's the safer for grant that no, that is the community medicine. Right. And that's what the second year is. And community peer medicine is to me is not a core fire. A fire. Suppression. Mission. And one of the things that comes to my mind is that we got this grant. We have our most expensive employee is a fully trained, fully sworn firefighter doing something that an hour in that's less cost could be doing and it's away from the mission. Meanwhile, the mission says we have fire prevention and we do inspections and there have to be done by sworn firefighters. So here we are doing community para medicine and ignoring a corps. Fire Department mission of doing fire prevention. And that's the that's the comments that I've heard. That's the logic that when I look at at that balance, it it was maybe a nice idea to backfill the budget, but. We're two in 28% of the inspections, and you don't have a fire prevention bureau and you're doing that now. So I the ghost ship pushed us to that. But. Right. That's that's the that's the thing. I'm kind of that's the challenge I'm laying to. Management Council doesn't isn't supposed to come up with the answers. Management is supposed to do so. That's that's my comment on this. So with the with the community peer medicine grant, that is strictly for community paramedics. And we can't use those people for anything else. So it's it's not costing the the city anything to have those people in place. What it's enabling us to do is we have always had a division chief over our EMS division that handles all of our EMS related issues, that is front running and maintaining our ambulance transport system, maintaining all the certifications for all the paramedics and EMT and continuing education in the fire department. We've had the luxury and he is still overseeing EMS. We've had the luxury of having the community peer medicine grant or pilot program pay for that division chief for the last three years. But that grant ends at the end of 17 in November. So at that point and when we're asking for this position. If we do not have a division chief to oversee the EMS division, then there will be devastating effects because we'll only have one chief beside myself in the office handling all of operations on one side and all of the support services on the other side. So. There would there would be a major effect if this is not funded. Thank you. Sit here. Chief, you you mentioned that there are extremely high vehicle maintenance costs. And if you could just kind of cover or just give us a ballpark of what those those are relative to the vehicles you're asking to replace. If you have. That number or estimate. You know, off the top of my head, we just we just spent $45,000 on a engine rebuild. I know that we have a fire truck in the shop right now that needs a new transmission. That's $15,000. There are large. Hydraulic pistons that raise and lower the. The ladders we've had to replace those very expensive but. When you get to that point, I had to make the decision to go ahead and replace the transmission on this older 1995 truck, because two years ago, we replaced the engine in it. Mm hmm. So. Not taking care of it and getting more life out of it now with a new motor in it. Right. It doesn't make sense. But we're going to get to the point now where we have these very old fire engines. We're going to start running into exactly the same thing. Mm. Thank you. And Brody. I just want to make sure I'm clear on the division, chief. So it's no increase in headcount, so you're not asking for an additional body. You're just asking for a budget line item transfer. And the person will still be there doing the same duties. But now the funding source has to change. It's funded through the through the county right now. Right. So, yes, it will need to be funded by the city. But you're not we're not asking to increase the headcount and add anybody. We're just we're not adding a FTE or another employee. We're just paying for one that we've already paid for and some other. We need that. Position this year and next year. Yes. So I think. And so when you have a situation like that, when you bring in grant money and you hire someone is and this is from the county. Then when the grant ends and normally does the department, does the city pick up that or does that position end? It depends what the position is. As far as community medicine goes. The expectation is, is that when. This grant runs out that there may be a mechanism put in place to continue the program once it's adopted as part of their normal scope of practice. Whether Medicare starts putting funds toward it because at this point, because it's just a pilot program, there are no funding mechanisms permanently in place will continue. Regarding this division chief, the 306,000, that's something from the county, right. Is that for the paramedic here, medicine program. Is he is funded through the community paramedic program right now. Okay. We're anticipating that funding is going to end November. Yes, in November. Okay. Member Ashcraft. Thank you. Thank you. So, Chief Plant, can you tell us it's been about a month since the council approved your request, at least part of your request for three new staff for the Fire Prevention Bureau. Can you tell us what you've done with those folks since that time? Well, since we've gotten authorization to do that, we have scheduled our interviews for people who would like to be in the Fire Prevention Bureau. We have several of those complete. The rest get completed next week. They are scheduled to go into the office on the 30th as their positions aren't funded with the city until the 28th of May. We have acquired a space at City Hall West directly across from the EMS division and. Public Works has put in the the electrical outlets that we need. We have ordered cubicle office spaces which will be delivered on the 25th and installed along with the other office furniture. The vehicles are on order. And we're coming up with a plan for distribution of the inspections themselves as to who's going to get them done, what the responsibility will be. So. So you started interviewing personnel who who are interested in these positions? The the assistant chief, whatever that position was one of. The top assistant fire marshal. It's a classified that is that position known who will fill it or not yet? I'm still interviewing. You're still interviewing. Okay. So when do you anticipate having finished all your interviews and having made a decision decisions? By the end of next week. Okay. So my final interviews are on the 23rd. I'll know after. That. And the funding doesn't actually come through until the 28th. The 28th. So because that 3000 plus list of uninspected buildings just, you know, hangs over me like a cloud. Have we have we made some progress whittling that number down or is it as high as it was last time I looked at the numbers. The the commercial inspections remain higher. We're we're getting more of the residential inspections done. A lot of what staff has been doing since the prevention bureau was authorized is taking that whole list of inspections and coordinating by date range when they were last inspected. So that we will start with the oldest and work through that first push back ones that have been done more recently so that your concerns will be met. As far as the ones we haven't been in the longest amount of time, but it's a matter of breaking down all of all of the inspections because basically when the Fire Prevention Bureau closed in 2009, all the inspections, all the commercial inspections that were passed down. From the inspectors in the office were passed down to suppressions. We need to pull all those out. And reassign them and then reassign all the residential inspections so that they're more evenly spread so that we get them all done. And so you'll get the funding on the 28th of this month. And then I think you told us earlier I had another meeting that there would still need to be some training. So when do we anticipate having those boots on the ground actually going out and doing the inspections. Starting the 28th? They're going to get a refresher class on the SLA program, which is how we track all the inspections. They'll get the class of that day. They will get a class from internal people that used to be in the Fire Prevention Bureau on getting the inspections done in these commercial buildings. Any of the little extra things that they're not used to doing on the on the suppression side of things. And then we'll watch for the classes to become available. They'll still be able to go out and do inspections. But as inspector classes and plant checking classes come up, we'll be sending them to those classes. Okay. But as of the 29th, we should see more inspections taking place. Yes, on the on the 30th. All right. Thank you. Also in regards to the fire engines or trucks, I'm going to ask, do we keep track of where those vehicles are driven such that are they only driven to emergencies? Or is there any reason why we would see a fire engine or a truck, for instance, at Safeway? Because I'm thinking if these have such high mileage, do we monitor to make sure that they're only used for emergencies as opposed to another vehicle like a passenger car? No, because when they get to work at 8:00 in the morning and get assigned to their fire engine or fire truck or ambulance, they are assigned to that as a company, as a crew for the whole 24 hour shift. Everywhere they go, they're on call. They're ready to go. So whether they're out inspecting or whether they're at a class training, whether they're out in the public at a community event, they remain a crew on, that is a fire apparatus so that if a car comes in, they can go. It's a it's a common question in the community why we are at the store with a fire truck and it's. Grocery shopping or because. Because what? We eat, we live there for basically 48 hours. And they have to take a fire engine that when we have this kind of mileage issue, they can't just take a regular. Car. It will if they take the car, then they're not in service as a fire engine. Okay. Well, say free deliveries now as they're possible. Maybe we'll look into something like that, because you're telling me I mean, you're telling us that we have, you know, a 26 year old engine and yet so. So I think we have to be mindful of when we use these vehicles because we have to pay for them. And honestly, I don't understand why in the world we would need to have a crew go grocery shopping with a fire engine when we have to figure out a way to keep the mileage low, because we can't replace these vehicles. We can't replace everything. Right. We saw the earlier just so I appreciate the comment in regards to Safeway delivers, but I think any time we have these vehicles out grocery shopping and getting coffee. It's hard for me to tell our public that, okay, we have to pay for that. And that's that doesn't really seem like the highest and best use of taxpayer dollars. And I think it's going to be hard for anyone to be able to justify that because we don't have unlimited funds. So I'd appreciate it if you all can figure out a way to have groceries delivered, get a coffeemaker if you need to have coffee, but you're on. This is taxpayer dollars and we cannot afford to replace engines. We don't have that kind of money. If it's being used to and from an emergency or a training, that's one thing. But other than that, I mean, honestly. Grocery shopping. No hanging out at Pete's. No, no, I don't want I don't think it's appropriate. And I think it's very hard for you to sit up here when you have genuine concerns to have to rationalize something like that. Yeah, I just I just would like to just clarify that when they go to the grocery store, it's generally part of their their day, whether they're coming back from a class, whether they're out doing something else, it's just looped in as part of their day. I actually you may disagree with me, but I like my people to be out in the community and accessible. I would rather have them sit down and have their coffee break. But the fire engine, that's my issue. Well, it's another vehicle. They're connected. They're connected to their fire engine. And if they're not there, they're not available for an emergency. And I think the chief is responding from an operations point of view and from your request. Question is also about the vehicle efficiency. And when we were looking at all the vehicles, there's a formula that our fleet manager looks on and it's number of years, age of the vehicle, life expectancy of the vehicle and vehicles miles traveled . And in most cases, because Alameda is an island and relatively small, we hit the criteria of age before we hit the criteria of miles. And as the chief said, this fire engine is 26 years old. It's nine years past what the criteria is or when we should replace that vehicle. So I appreciate that. And but I was here for the earlier part of the presentation. $23 million a year gaps plus as the years pass we are looking at that was we we saw that pie chart. Those are the other departments in the city. Right. So so I appreciate that you may really appreciate having your crew out and about being visible. I also want to be able to have parks. I want to be able to have our public works. Are our streets maintained? We're going to be making some very tough decisions. And it's going to be impossible for me to sit up here and rationalize, okay, all I'm going to be not funding a park so that our officers are not our officers. Our fire can hang out with their crew, grocery shopping. And we have to be able to hear ourselves what we're saying, because we saw the chart year after year, $23 million we don't have. It will be painful. Personally, I think we need to start thinking how can we save money now? Because the cumulative effect will be very painful. So I'm just suggesting if there's a way to do it, put in fewer miles on these vehicles. I would appreciate it. Member Ashcraft. Thank you. And you know, I think we all may have a little different perspective on this. We do have some very alarming numbers, indebtedness looming before us. I think we have to be careful not to fall into the trap of symbolism that may feel good but not really make much of a difference. We do need to do some cutting and some more, you know, funding are these trust funds. But I mean, I'm the city manager says they're reaching their age before they hit the mileage numbers. And even if we said drive them until they're 30 years old, I don't I don't think I mean, I do understand that a fire crew can get called to an emergency from wherever they are and then they drop everything. And so, you know, well, and but again, we all have different perspectives and we're all going to vote and make these decisions. So I would just come at it a little differently. I want to look at at real substantial savings. And we'll be talking to your department about that. I'm okay with those trucks at the grocery store for now, given the other numbers that the fleet manager has provided. So that's my $0.02. It's going to take more than $0.02 to get. And when we get to the end of this presentation, you'll be able to look and compare recreation and parks and all these requests all together. Maybe with that I can call up. All right. Is that. I'm through with my presentation. Any further questions? Anyone know on the fire engines what the miles per gallon is? If they're very. Smart, maybe you could come back with that number. I can. I can find. Out. That'd be great. Thanks. Okay. And so next up is our chief of police a for Larry. Good evening, mayor. Council members. Paul Hillary, chief of police. Good evening, chief. Good evening. I will try to be brief. The police department budget over the next few years, the only increases that you will see are the projected rate contract raises over the next few years. The department is always funded at about 90 or 93% of it personnel costs and only about six or 7% of non personnel costs. So those are the only really significant changes that you'll see throughout the projections. That sounds great. Thank you. Pretty quick. My only request and this is this is out of an abundance of I don't like to always use the word transparency, but I don't want to surprise you or anyone else. I'm anticipating that at some point during the next two years that I would be presenting a staff report and asking for your permission and authorization to get fixed license plate readers at the bridges, in the tunnels, in and out of town. I am conscious that that is a larger policy discussion with lots of other issues. As you know, we had the we have the mobile cars that have them. There's four and. Like I said, this is a discussion. That would have to be had at a later date. What I'm the reason why I'm bringing it up tonight is that. It's going to cost about $500,000 if we did it. So whether you choose to set that aside for now or and say, okay, we'll wait and hear your presentation, or if you'd rather I bring it to you as a mid-year adjustment item, I'm happy to do that. But I didn't want to surprise you at any point during the two years and have you say, Well, why didn't I come? We're hearing about this for the first time. I thought we already had them. We do. On cars. Not fixed. But. They're on for four separate patrol cars. All right. Member Ashcraft and the member. Thank you. So I had to mark this as one to ask you about. So what's the problem we're trying to solve here? Well, the problem. I'll give you a really quick anecdotal one. You were all here two weeks ago, last council meeting, when Monique Williams came up and spoke very eloquently about the murder of her son at the bowling alley back around Thanksgiving. And she had some questions at that time, which I've since answered for the council and for her regarding her perception that that we had cameras on certain intersections or in the area, and we don't. And so I'm I can't sit here and look you straight in the eye and tell you that I would have been able we would have been able to solve that murder with a license plate reader with a fixed license plate reader. But I will tell you, with 100% confidence that we would be much further along in the investigation because we know what car the shooter was in. What we don't know is the license plate number. And and if in if we had had that information available to us, for example, going over the bridge or after one of the the the tube that night, we would have been able to narrow it down and probably would have found that car. BIDEN Months ago. So that's my anecdotal. What are we trying to solve here? You want to do that? Yeah. And as I recall, you wrote a very eloquent letter to the mother that, you know, you copied as on and but you also mentioned that if you had cooperation from the witnesses there. Absolutely, you. Would you would have the information. Absolutely. So. Yeah, that's true. And I'm not I don't mean to suggest member Ashcroft that that it's solely because of the camera. I'm just saying that was a big that would have been a big piece for us. Having the cooperation of the people who were there and witnessed it would have been also equally as important. But before that incident happened and it's been a couple of months now before that, what is I mean, is it because you're getting such impressive results from your mobile cameras or you feel that we're we're missing something? I mean, we're still a fairly low crime rate city, right? Because we have that excellent police department. Go ahead and Jill in there. Thank you. So that's true. Our crime rate has generally remained flat or has even gone down in some areas, even though some surrounding communities have seen an uptick. We certainly have seen that more in property crimes. We've only always been fairly fortunate. The last incident that I described decide to not have a high violent crime rate, which I think we're all thrilled with, but we do have a fair amount of property crime, stolen cars and car break ins and burglaries and things of that nature. So. License plate readers are helpful. It's not a secret. I said it in the presentation several years ago and our data has backed it up that we only get about 1% of all the scans turn into anything that leads to an arrest. So there are people on one side of the coin who will say that's a lot of money to spend for 1% return. And then I've argued, but if we solve a murder or find a missing child, or in one case we saved a woman who was trying to commit suicide. I told you all several months back during one of the audit reports, I mean, then it's worth its weight in gold. So it's part of the balancing act. That was the mobile camera, though. That was a mobile camera. Trying to fix camera wouldn't have saved her. Well. What happened in that case was we didn't know where her car was, but we had the license plate from the family. So we ran it. We just manually entered it into the system and it told us, Oh, you just scanned it at that intersection 45 minutes ago. And so we found her that way. So you're right. But you're right. The that was the mobile. Okay. Well, thank. You. I think from a budget standpoint, my question to the city managers, this is in the with department requests, correct? Yes. But we actually don't expect the council to make a decision on this. But the placeholder of half a million dollars. Yes. Is in the with the request. So rather than having the discussion of whether we should or not, the question is, should we put a half a million dollars aside or not? Right. That's the. Okay, so. I think. That's it. Just be aware of it and then make the decision when it comes before the council. And I'm happy to bring it to you in that fashion. I just didn't want you to be surprised to help you solve your crime. The crime thinks now, but I think to know that there's a half million dollars sitting out there that may be needed. That's all right. A system. That's my point. I need to know. I swear. So I think it's. A bigger policy discussion that definitely warrants its own, you know, being agenda ized and having that discussion separately. But. This is you have this just is one time costs. Is this the equipment? Is there going to be any sort of operational costs? Like are there licensing? You know, you know, there's technology licensing fees involved? Is there support ongoing? Are there going to be ongoing costs relative to that? The there might be there will be some ongoing costs for data retention if depending on what we do with that, if we keep it for a couple of days or for six months like we do on the current, that that could be an ongoing cost. But the one time the one time would be what you're looking at on the slide is the 500,000, which is the the cameras in the installation and the power to to keep it running. Okay. And we're ready. The ongoing can be absorbed in your operating. In the operational budget. It wouldn't be an additional. Okay. Thank you. And Brody agree that this is a larger policy discussion we have to have later. But I do want to chime in a little bit, since I know everyone else has had a few minutes to talk about it. You know, I actually have another example that, you know, when I lived on Bay Farm, there was a rash of burglaries in our neighborhood. And, you know, we were like the 10th or 11th or 12th. And then there was another, you know, dozen or so that happened afterwards. And it it took maybe another year and a half or two before they found the person who did that. And the person lived in a different city. So if. You, as the police chief for the department, were able to find that vehicle after the first or second or third one. You know, that would have solved or that would've prevented a lot of different property crimes. You know, that that would have prevented my kids coming home from high school to a bashed in front door. You know, because somebody from out of town was not able to be tracked. So, I mean, there are really legitimate law enforcement, crime solving aspects to this that do impact everyone's everyday life. And when you come back, you know, you'll have to bring a policy like you did the first time that that balances those. So that's kind of my $0.02 on that. And think you might. Well, first I want to ask, so this would be at all the places that you leave town or enter town? Is it both? Yes. And entering and exit. So it would be all the bridges, the four bridges, the Webster and the Posey tubes and the Ron Klain Parkway, because you can get to Bay Farm Island without going over a bridge. And do little or whatever that is that comes in there, too. Well, that would be covered at the bridge. Okay. That'd be covered at the bridge. But but you can get from the Oakland Airport onto Bay Farm Island by at Ron Coulon Parkway. Okay. Well, personally, I am looking forward to seeing your presentation on that. Yeah, I probably will support that. That's it. All right. Next up is recreation and parks director. I'd be really hurt. If. We heard. You had that. Next line for you to be assassinated. Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name's Amy Wooldridge, Recreation and Parks Director. So I want to give you a brief outline of the recreation parks budgets. Park maintenance itself is primarily funded by the general fund. There is also where you see the maintenance assessment that's Bayport Park and Marina Cove Parks. And so those the maintenance of those are funded by those particular assessment districts. For recreation programing, we have a special revenue fund that's the recreation fund, and all revenue comes into that fund as well as expenditures out. The general fund does contribute to the recreation fund and really the basis behind that has always been to fund the aspects of programs that serve recreation, programs that serve at risk, and low income populations such as Mastic Senior Center, such as our Free Parks and Playgrounds program, that's at five sites throughout the city where kids can come for absolutely no cost. It's kind of unheard of in my industry at this point. And so we should be very proud that we're still offering that Free Park Baseball, that kind of thing, and making parks and recreation accessible to everybody. We also have the maintenance senior center fundraising program, and that's our bingo programs and our thrift shop and as well as an annual donation campaign that we do. And so that fundraising program is managed by our Mastic Senior Center Advisory Board, and they volunteer and put all the effort into the fundraising, and then they distribute the funds, which helps fund some programing and also mostly funds capital improvement projects at the senior center. And then the golf fund revenues come from our revenues, our leases with or lease with Greenway Gulf for Operation and Maintenance, as well as our concession agreement, which comes on the course for food and beverage. That's the revenue. The expenditures for the Gulf Fund is things like our stormwater assessment, Harbor Bay assessment and those types of expenditures. Member Ashcraft answered a question, and this will do so in the golf fund. Why the jump in fiscal year 1718 and the dips down in. So let's see, 1617, you're projecting 360,000 and 407,017 18 then it goes down to 389. Can you explain that? The good question, the jump is because the Greenway Golf there at the start of year five, which was September 1st, 2016, their revenue went up from a bit low base amount of 75,000 a year to a 5% or minimum 300,000. So that's where the jump came in. And that was a part of this fiscal year and then a full year next fiscal year. It went down and then it goes down a bit in 1819 because conversely, Jim's on the course when their event center opens, then they get two years of waves rent, and so it then dips down for two years and that's anticipated to be open by the end of this year. Regarding new requests. As you've heard, we have as you know, we have 35 acres of new parkland coming online this this two year budget cycle. And so we are requesting to park maintenance positions to help us maintain those parks. And and those parks have been in design and planning for the last four or five years. And every time I presented to them in the community or to council, I tried very hard to make that awareness out there that maintenance would also follow once we open these parks. So but we're also trying to do it very conscientious early in that we're requesting two full time positions. We are conversely, we are actually working really hard to reduce our water maintenance or our water costs or utility costs. And so where you see the implement irrigation efficiencies, these new positions will be we'll be hiring an irrigation specialist that will be able to create significant new water efficiencies. So we actually kept our water budget flat from this fiscal year and didn't add anything, which means we'll add all 14 acres of brand new active park space, not including what's not built yet, but that will be irrigated and absorbing a 10% each year. Eastbay Mud increase. But we're not adding additional cost for either of those. We're absorbing that cost because we feel confident enough that with a new irrigation specialist we can create those water efficiencies and it's good for the environment. In addition, we are creating a reorganization of our Park Maintenance Division through attrition. So as people retire and leave, we are essentially right now we have a very flat division where we have a park manager and we have a lot of folks out in the field, the park maintenance workers. And we want to create a more robust division so that there's more efficiency, so that there's more of a breadth of skill set. And and as well, people can grow. They can come in as lower level gardeners work their way up to a maintenance one and then a maintenance two and a four person and such. So it really creates opportunities for staff advancement and also for creating a much broader skill set which serves our parks better. So with that, we have two retirements, that one that just happened and one that's as of tomorrow. And with with each of those, we're reclassifying that maintenance one position down to a gardener position. Each time we do that we save $25,000. So that 50,000 between the $115,000 savings for water and the $50,000 annual savings for those reclassifications. Really it's a it's a net general fund expense for part maintenance of about $61,000 a year with these new positions. Just briefly about the Mastic fundraising and the Adam Street Fund. I've mentioned to you at the Mastic fundraising is the Adam Street Fund. What that is, is that's a leg, what we call a legacy fund. So when people pass away and they write mastic senior center into their wills. We have two different funds that those go into and those are designated per legally per their wills to be used for mastic senior center. And so we use those for improvements at the senior center in Nebraska. Thank you. Is Adam Street the name of a person? It's the name of a street. Yeah. So. So how did it get to be the Adams chief and. Someone a long time ago named it that hasn't been renamed since. It was, but it was part of a bequest. It was a bequest where someone requested their home on Adams Street and then it was sold. And those funds went into this? Yes. So it wasn't Mr. Street, right? No. Sorry. Ms.. Okay. Thank you. Vice Mayor. So you. Reference that the net expense for. The two positions. At the bottom. But so the positions are being reclassified after retirements. What what are the reclassifications that are occurring? Both positions are currently a park maintenance one, and they're being reclassified to a lower classification to gardener positions after retirements. Okay. Thank you. Just a few more points I wanted to make about our Parks division. They're incredibly hard working group of people with these new parks, Astro Park and Jean Sweeney, Open Space Park. We're adding 14 acres of new actively program that's phase one of estuary and across our nature trail. And the next phase, the eastern phase of Sweeney Park. But we still have to maintain 21 the additional 21 acres of open parkland. It still needs to be mown and taken care of and trees maintained, trash maintained. So we are increasing our park acreage by 18% and we're only asking for a 12 and a half percent increase of our park maintenance budget. And also just want to point out that we you know, we talk all the talk I talk all the time with other directors. And and so we actually went out and did a survey of how much other cities, our nearby cities, whether it's San Remo. And we looked at Dublin, which San Leandro and how much they maintain how many acres per full time staff person. And so with that, we realized that we actually maintain about twice as many acres per full time staff person. So really they're doing twice the work. And and that was five cities that we surveyed. Some of them only maintained four acres per full time staff, and we're doing 16. So we're really trying to be as efficient as possible with the staff that we have out there. Before we move on. I appreciate where you have your net general fund expense, right? You did some net. And when this comes back, if there's a way to show net on some of these positions because there's other times that this has already come up tonight where you have your gross that showing up here. But there's actually a net because of whatever reasons. I think when it comes back and we're looking at numbers of what we're going to fund or not, we need to be you can include the gross but include the net because that's the change from year to year for us. Thank you. Thank you. So the last two points I want to make is, is it was mentioned before by a little earner, Eric, but we since 1995, we did have 12 full time staff. We today still have 12 full time staff. And we've taken on 43 acres of new parkland since then, not including what we're about to take on. So at some point, we need to catch up and make sure that they don't fall into disrepair moving forward. And lastly, just to clarify for Estuary Park, any time we have and for our fields in general, any revenue that we have coming in from our fields for renting those fields, that stays in the recreation, it comes into the recreation fund and that's expended our parks maintenance it out of the recreation fund. So specific field and equipment and supplies for estuary park in our other fields do come out of the recreation fund, not a park maintenance fund . So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. Okay. Next step is fucking life. Appreciate it. Go, warriors. Good evening, mayor and members of the council. I'm Jane Sawyer, library director. As you can see from this slide, the library has revenues from our library fund, which is the property tax assessment, the general fund transfer, and our adult literacy program, which includes donations and grants from the state. Half of our budget is spent on personnel, as you've heard most of the other departments. That's the bulk of the expenditures. And then supply services. One time expenses with capital outlay and our cost allocation. We? What we're asking for in the new budget year is I know you've all received requests, as I've heard, the public also ask if we could restore hours at our neighborhood libraries. So we're proposing giving a day back to both the Bay Farm Island Library and the West End Library, because the last time we reduced our budget, we took a day away. So we're going to give those same days back, and that will be an ongoing, ongoing expense out of the library fund. Then we're asking for one time expenditures to upgrade our technology. In 1718, we expect to replace and upgrade the computer lab because the computers in there are ten years old. And then in the second year, we're looking to replace pieces of equipment at the public staff stations, things like barcode readers and computer monitors, possibly printers in the public areas, small pieces of equipment like that. And that concludes my request. Any questions? I have a question. The extra day per branch. How many hours is that per day that you would be restoring? We're going to be we're going to be restoring one day each. So seven and a half hours. The branches will be open five days a week. Currently, they're open for. They'll still be closed on Fridays and Sundays. But they farm will get their Wednesday back. Weston will get their Tuesday back. After that. Our community will love that. Thank you. And not general fund. And not general fund dollars. Now you can all. Clap with me. Okay. Not general fund dollars. Yes. We're very generous to have property tax increased a little. And Mr. Psaki, I know you're giving it maybe a little bit of revenue, because I read recently about the amnesty program on library funds, but it's it's pretty cool. Do you want to just briefly lay it out? Yes. Part of our summer reading program this year is our food four fines. So we are waiving overdue fines, not lost book fees or anything like that. New library cards, just overdue fines. If you bring in nonperishable food, it'll go to the Alameda Food Bank. We did this two years ago as part of our summer reading program, and it was very popular. And you filled a lot of barrels with. We filled a lot of barrels. And according to the food bank, it was the second largest collection of food. Next to the scouts scouting for food in November. And since we're doing this in the summer, it really balances. They're receiving donations at a good time of year where they tend to run a little bit short. So we'll be doing this for the month of June and I think July. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you for asking. Thank you very much. Great presentation. Thank you. And the next is the city manager's office. And we are 100% general fund supported. Next. No, I don't know. It's hard to go after library. And our request is this is actually not a request for a new position, but it's a request for funding. When I first got here, there had been a long history there. We went back as far as we could and there have always been two assistant city managers. And when I first got here, I thought that sounded like a lot. And now that I've been here a year, it sounds like not enough. So that's what this is, is to find this position, to respond to a lot of special projects that come up on a daily basis. And, you know, some examples are the humor that we did initially, the utility, the Utility Modernization Act. We've just had a long effort with fours. The friends of the Alameda Animal Shelter, a lot of. On special projects come up that are not anticipated. So that's what this would be. So when you say you went back multiple years, how far back did you go where? We've always had two assistant city managers. 20. There's. So that was when when this started 20 years ago, is when we started having our back. And that's how far back we looked. Mm hmm. That's how far back our records we could look at our records. So that we have. Okay. So did we have other staff members that worked in the city manager's office? Yes. But our. Position. In this last year is we hired a public information officer. And so we've we've had that additional. So are you proposing to get rid of the public information officer? This is and to fill the public information officer position was added about a year and a half ago. It was funded and filled about a year ago, a little more than a year ago. And this position during that time period was left vacant. And so this is. Fill that in. It's a legit question. All right. Madam Chair. A member matter. SC In the slide you reference that refer increasing numbers of referrals. As. As one of the duties of the manager's office that this position may support. One of the things in listening to Mr. Potter's presentation. The slides on there are very descriptive of what that department does as far as inspections and plan checks and all the planning functions. And I understand most of that money revenue comes from the fees for permits and plans and applications. So they're doing the applicant business, the business of the applicants moving applications through. And these are the way I look at the referrals. Most of the referrals that take the most time that haven't been done are planning related. And that's the people's business because they lay down the the track or the ordinances or the policies that applicants are supposed to file. Is there any possibility or or thought to having this position or some sort of funding from this position? Do the people's business in planning so that instead of it being something, well, we'll hire a planned check or three to help free up time for someone to work on these ordinance updates that we have, someone who's always working on ordinance updates so that the people's business can be carried on. And then applications follow the new ordinances because there's a whole package of those ordinances that are all environmental. So you look at straws, you look at birds, you look at trees, you look at light, those are are all. And then there are some that are you know, the applications are rolling through for big projects on the northern waterfront and we still don't have a inclusionary housing update. We all approve that. So it's no longer a referral. It's a direction. We know we still don't have the Amex zoning guidance that to be put in an ordinance and. You know, all of these are in M zone. So the applications, because they've paid their money, they're getting front line service in the people's businesses sitting in the back when we get to it. So, yes, you know, I think that if they have to stop and let the ordinances catch up or we need to catch the ordinances up to the projects that are rolling through. And we can do that. And we can also fill this position with someone with expertize in that or someone who will work. Like I think the city manager's office does have to be flexible and work with the Department of Expertize and assist and pursue and make it happen. And like. As warm and wet and worked for amp or. And months or a long six months. I don't know. A long time. So that could be something that we do depending on what the referral is. That is high. Priority. We have four big giant projects rolling through Italian ship ways, Alameda Marina and snow terminals. They all have the opportunity to give us more affordable housing. An ordinance hasn't caught up with it and we have to also shape so that we get some real commercial and the Amex the mix of that and those are waiting. So we either have to stop the train and let the ordinances catch up or run up and catch up with the train. Ashcroft. Well, I mean, as I said, the city manager overseeing all departments in the city, that office is in a good position to know where the extra staffing and effort needs to be. And I, I have been impressed with the breadth of issues that we've had come at us. I don't think any of us at least I didn't anticipate quite how extensive the rental ordinance issues would be. And that certainly cut across a number of departments city attorney, community development. But the city managers, too, and who knew the animal shelter would, you know, involve quite such protracted, seemingly endless negotiations. It's done now. Knock on wood. But I anyway, I, I think that, you know, to be a well-managed city, I'm not going to do too much micromanaging. But I do think we, we expect a lot of our city staff and and we should listen when they say they need some extra help. But Vice Mayor, we'll hear more. Sorry. Vice Mayor. When was the last time we had two assistant city managers and. A city manager. And a city manager go. So we had three. Positions last. Year. Okay. And my other question is, have we. Is there a cost savings relative to. You know, are there are there things that we're putting out where we're having, say, a consultant or somebody outside working on certain things that is going to then be covered by this position? Haven't actually used consultants to fill in for projects. So we basically had our. Current. Staff pick up the work. Yes. Thank you. Okay. So I'm just going to add the 280,000 for that position. I would really appreciate if you could come up with another way to do it. That is, I want to say less than half of that. We're asking all of our departments. We have added the pillow since I've been there. We didn't used to have that. We are going to have to pick and choose. And and I can't I can't support that many. But I'm going to call chiefs. 280,000 is a heck of a lot of money, and I'd actually rather spend that on some of the equipment or other things that we need rather than adding a position at a salary that high. I don't think it's appropriate to ask for such a position given the financial report we just saw. That's high, and I've already talked to other departments. I'm expecting them to come back, really trying to figure out how how can we do a good job long term and add in a position at that pay. I don't think we can afford it. This is the problem. We really are going to have that huge gap. That is a high level position. If we need someone to help, then I think it has to be a lower level pay and we have out of the pie out of that same department. So if we think we need a pill. Okay, well, then I think we have to save money on someone else. And Sarah Henry is very competent. I'm not sure what all she does, but no 280,000 high level position. I'm not going to be able to support that. And I'm asking every department figure out how we do it for less. And this is my opinion. We don't have the money. Any other comments? 320,000, apparently. Okay. Well, sorry. My apologies. 320, not 280. That's. No, I can't do it. No, let's keep going. Okay. So that's a good segway into it. Caroline Hogg. Our technology director, who is going to talk about capital. Good evening, Mayor. Council Members. Carolyn Hogg, information technology director. Our department is newly created this budget cycle and we're no longer part of the general fund. We are now an internal service fund, which means art. We are funded by departmental charges. And in the past, those charges used to go the general fund and now they're being siloed. So what that really means. Is it means that our charges that we came up with the cost allocation method, it was based on a percentage of number of PCs fees and number of network accounts. And it was a. Revenue stream used to I guess is used to go in the general fund and then this is all part of the general fund and now it's all being separated. Well, it depends on which department is. If it's a general funded department, then yes. But if it's a department like community development or base re-use, it is not general fund dollars. Okay. But what was your first sentence when you started this. That we. Had changed? You're now we were in the general fund and now we are on a separate fund called an internal service fund. Okay. So if you're in a separate fund, that must be your revenue and expenses are coming out of that separate fund. Yes. Okay. And then before, though, they must have run through General. That was what I was saying. Thank you. But. But the general fund does get charged. The police department, which or the fire department which is general fund pays into this fund. So it does correct the general fund. Right now, they're doing a different industry and. It's. It's funny funny money. But no that's where the fund by the color of the. That's the color of the pie. Yeah. Okay. It's still a large chunk still. Comes out of the general fire. Another. Yes. So I'll cut that. Good job down. But I bet there's more to your report, isn't it? Yes. Yes. So the city has done a great job upgrading technology for public facing needs for for public transparency and services over the years. And we implemented a secret fix. Public Works has a new system for work orders and asset tracking. So we've done a good job there and we haven't done the same kind of upgrades internally, though. Historically, technology has been underfunded and a lot of cuts were made to technology until the last budget cycle when Liane King made a great presentation and really showed. I talked about what the significant impacts are to the city when we don't invest in internal technology needed to support our city services. So in 2016, we hired a technical consultant to come in and assist us in developing our 3 to 5 year strategic master plan for technology. They met and had interviews with every department, and from those interviews they determined that there were a lot of end of deferred needs affecting our internal inefficiencies. So basically the next five cross-departmental requests all came from those interviews and that process. And the recommendation was mainly to modernize some very old legacy systems. The first one is the Enterprise Resource Planning ERP system. It's a it's a complete H.R. financial system replacement that automates, you know, significantly outdated and inefficient internal manual systems that support all departments. And as an example, in H.R., this is our H.R. system, and they still use a card check system. And so they have to have a typewriter. And every personnel action that happens, they hired eight. If you get a raise, if you get a step increase, gets manually type typed in this. And so not only in H.R. that this is their system but rec and park, they all also follow the same system. And and really where the inefficiency is, is when we had an across the board one time salary increase, all every employee's record had to be pulled in, manually calculated what the increase was and then type typed on to this. I was going to type it in to show you an actual example. I don't have a manual typewriter at home. So the other thing I wanted to share with you is this is actually my timesheet. Every employee hand writes out their times that they work and then at the end of the to pay period, it goes to somebody else to to check it on paper. All FMLA is done manually. Benefits, appraisals, lead management, training, certifications are all tracked manually and then typed up on here. And so in order for a city to effectively manage like overtime or pay differentials, it's very cumbersome and almost impossible to get an accurate accounting for that. The financial system, which is basically the brains of city operations and controls our budget process and forecasting and all the good information here. It's a very, very old system. In fact, it's actually being sunset and they're not putting any more money into the development of the financial side. Performance is low. Key reports can't be created out of the our system. So Finance and other departments rely on comprehensive spreadsheets to get our accounting system. The other issue with that is there's no integration with our old system into other systems. So there's a lot of double entry which can cause errors in our accounting. So it's a very complicated cross departmental system that we're all using and actually most cities transferred from this type of process 20 years ago. So the timing is right. By implementing an efficient H.R. financial system that will actually free up some staff time by having to manually have everybody's hands touch these cards to, you know, be better able to support the community in other ways. But most importantly, our public expects strong levels of fiscal management responsibility. And in order to meet our high standards, all city departments need to be able to better manage their budgets in their labor force and workforce. And this will actually, by moving with a new ERP system, will maximize taxpayers dollars. The next top priorities that came out of our prioritization workshop is actually looking into records management review project. So it's an electronic document management system because in the city various documents and images are filed in different areas and they're not interconnected. And so when we have to do searches on like a major project, we don't even know what system to go look at to get a comprehensive overview of of the project. So this came out from the interviews. The other request is to actually invest in a citywide large document sharing system because each department has a need to upload and share, collaborate with very large documents. So they've taken it upon themselves to get personal Dropbox accounts. And with the security issues that we have, we want to get away from those kinds of needs, but have more of a citywide system. And then this. We want to develop an actual GIS Geospatial Roadmap for data integration. Many departments throughout the city use GIS data layers, and that ranges from being able to identify light poles and utility poles and tax assessed tax parcels addresses. But we have various systems in the city and they're also not integrated. So when one department updates their GIS data, they have to actually email that new data to the other department and then they have to upload it. So without integration and without any kind of standards that have actually been set up, somebody some system could put in the address for eighth Street using an eight with a T h and then the other system is T. And so those addresses will not connect. So this, this request is to actually develop a GIS road map. And then, as Debbie Porter mentioned, we are wanting to focus on a GIS position. I'll get to that next. And then we also want to look into smart infrastructure. And as Amy Wooldridge, director of Rec and Parks mentioned, they want to get into a smarter irrigation project. So that's implementing remote facility lighting and irrigation management. This will help field staff in park and Rec. Instead of having to go to every facility or baseball park and turn on the lights manually or go out and irrigate, this remote control system will be able to do that from an office at the other. Side before you move on. I just want to clarify. So in order to do the irrigation for Park and Rec, we need this. We need some kind of infrastructure. So whether it's air fiber or some kind of connect, connection, irrigation. We need this. For the smart. Yeah, for the smart infrastructure. Save the money on irrigation that we were talking about of these connected MBS warmer dam. Could you come up and let me confirm this because I'm afraid we're blurring these things very well. But here she go. No worries. The savings I was I was referencing will happen regardless. We would get even additional savings if we were able to have a smart infrastructure system like this for for irrigation, because it can go off the weather satellites and then it actually, if it's raining, just. Kept sprinklers separate. That would. Be in addition to our additional. Savings. All right. Thank you. But it's basically moving our city smarter forward using technology. That's the next page I'm concerned about. So enhancing the traffic management system we had, we recently installed Horizon for traffic signals management and we have some traffic cameras to help manage traffic, but we want to expand like real time monitoring of traffic data so we can improve the overall traffic management. And this can actually branch out into our neighboring regions so that we have more of a traffic management to get on and off the island. Are there grants for any of this to pay for these systems? So we will there could be. And especially if you go into something like that on a regional collaboration basis, then the grant opportunities are better. And then the last one is the shared service agreement for centralized network separation. What that means is right now AMP manages the city's network as well as AMP's network, and AMP has to operate under very strict utility regulations that sometimes holds the city's goals back because the city doesn't necessarily have to operate under those same strict regulations like a utility departments do. So, for instance, we haven't been able to move forward with city Wi-Fi or remote access because of the security issues that that AMP is concerned about. So this would actually segment the city's administrative network from AMP and it would be managed separately. Recently you received a memo from the Friends of Alameda Free Library strongly urging your support for some kind of wireless solution out at Alameda Point. They have a very successful semiannual book sale, and right now they can only get cash because the cell cellular phone signals are very, very weak there and there's no wireless. So people like to go to events like that and use your credit cards or debit cards. And right now, there's no mechanism for that. So they're seeing that that's actually affecting potential sales. So this is not only a high priority for internal needs, but also for our community. Remote access. That was probably the first request when I walked through the doors a year and a half ago was especially the executive level, wanted to be able to get to their desktop files and applications without having to actually sit behind your desk here in the city. So this will allow for that kind of remote access availability. And then the last part of the shared service agreement. So basically what this is, is contracting with a like a network company to be able to manage our network. This would also include some of our support for our technical staff, because right now it's not uncommon for they're very dedicated and I can't thank them enough. But it's not unusual for them to work seven days a week or on their vacation because things happen that are unplanned and people know how to reach them. And so this will help balance work life by we have a very small staff compared to even compared to our neighboring cities. So this will help address that. So next slide. Like I mentioned, these are cost estimates that we got from our technology consultants in their ballpark, but they've been doing this for a while, so they're pretty accurate. Now, remember, this is these are just budget requests and we would not be, you know, purchasing or procuring any of this without coming back to council and actually making the case by case basis for this and in proceeding with your approval. But the our financial system is estimated to be at one time in FY 18 for 1.5 million. And then the other strategic plan recommendations, which is the electronic document management system, the GIS road mapping governance, the smart infrastructure and the shared service agreement is also estimated at 1.5 million. The citywide Wi-Fi projects is one time 200,017 and 18 because it requires hardware and software to manage it and security appliances. And then 100,018 19. And then Debbie mentioned about the need to have a technical systems analyst to help with their SLA enhancements with EA plan check. So this position is 75% funded by community development, but it's actually in the I.T. budget and 25% would allow us to begin working on that, the GIS governance and road map to standardize the data layers and work with every department. And then lastly, the office assistant, because we are a new department, we don't have any administrative staff to help manage our our budget and do the purchasing and payments of procurements, personal related issues. And we want to do a citywide software contract management because a lot of common software systems contracts are managed by individual departments, manage our helpdesk ticket management system and other various management tasks. Okay. Who wants to go first? And where matter. S.E.. I know these dollars are big. They're one time expenses, but we're writing. Cards out with a typewriter. And this would be actually these. I think this slide needs some more work because there needs some projected nets on this, because there's an expense, but there's a net savings that can be projected and some of the savings could be reduced numbers of persons that are needed to do the manual activities that electronic system would do. We're so far behind that. At some point we're going to have to cross this bridge because we can't keep. Just from a fiduciary standpoint using typewriters on a on a on a cardboard form. Member already. I'll echo my colleague's comments, but just add a little bit of concern. And like two lives ago, I used to do this type of work and these budgets can spiral out of control. So I hope that when we go forward with this, if we do that, we keep a really tight rein on on this budget and be really accurate. I mean, we've had some inaccurate IT budget projecting lately, but I, I know that there's a lot of scope creep with especially these enterprise type systems. So let's just try to, you know, get us the best deal we can if we decide to go forward with that. Vice Mayor So one question is just what are the projections in terms of the one time expenditures for the IT equipment? Is that based off of. Like estimates. That you've received or from? Do you have potential, you know, companies that you have in mind in terms of working with relative to those sorts of systems? These are up to date estimates that we receive from our technical consultant to do this daily. And so they've kept up on what the costs are in the industry today. Okay. And then my other question is, you know, for some of these things, like the citywide Wi-Fi projects and things like that, are those going to be helpful, do you think, relative to some of our economic development plans? Are we is there kind of a strategy in terms of where those are going to be implemented? Actually, there is so what I've been hearing is there's a great need to have better Wi-Fi options out at Alameda Point. Right now, there's just you can either be hard wired with fiber, which is very lengthy and takes months and months to to get that and is expensive. So there's another wireless vendor out there. But what I've been hearing is that's not satisfactory to the people who are actually there now. We met with. The mayor and I met with a new organization that wants to locate out here on Alameda. So we're actually going to be doing a trial at the club to test out their product. But it's air fiber. So that's that could be a really good draw for economic development. Thank you. Remember Ashcroft. Thank you for that presentation, Miss Ho, even though you kind of terrified me with some of the information. So these numbers are a bit large. On the other hand, we have done without an IT department. Last time we did this, we clamored for needing one, so I guess we had to assume it was going to cost something . I have a couple questions. One is that can some of this be triaged, if you will? And I mean, maybe insofar as you have put some of it in the fiscal year 1819 column, you're doing that. And then. Um. But I agree with, with councilmember matter, S.E., that we need to catch up to the 21st century. Notwithstanding the recommendations of your consultant about systems and items to purchase, will you do some sort of a cost comparison or, you know, look to see just to make sure your you really are getting the best price. So a couple of things. Now that we have cloud opportunities today, a lot of them cities migrated about end of nineties could because they were getting ready for Y2K and we didn't do that here. But now other cities are getting ready to refresh and to go to the next generation. So there's a lot of cloud based opportunities which actually brings the costs down that we would evaluate, evaluate. But I'm also working in the region to see if we can go together because a lot of other cities around us are in the same boat as we are. So if we could do like a regional purchase and then negotiate better pricing, that's what we're going to be looking into. That sounds great. Please do. Okay. Those are my questions and comment. Okay. So when I look at this, no can do. No, this is a problem. This is 3 million plus in 1819. If I'd like to see the net, if there's going to be personnel savings, if there's going to be personal savings, then I don't know why you're asking for an office assistant, but no, I'm not going to be able to support three. What is it, three? Almost three and a half million dollars. I don't think it's appropriate. I appreciate your saving your own cards, but some people I think, you know, let's go back and review the beginning of this presentation. The money's just not there. It's just not there unless this is really going to result in savings. If you get grant money, personal saving something, otherwise it's the wrong direction. So I appreciate that member. Already had one more quick question. So. This idea of doing some infrastructure at Alameda Point, I mean. We're spending general fund money for some type of Wi-Fi infrastructure. I mean. No. Yes. How's that going to work because I thought this is capture at the point. General fund. Cafe by base reuse. But I mean, you're talking about like a wi fi. Oh, at the club. Yeah. And then later expanding it so we can. So credit. Cards. So what? Sorry. So look into the minutia on this. But this one just outside. We're not going to be purchasing the wi fi for the the companies out on Alameda Point. We're going to be testing their solution. And then if the other companies want to buy it to get it themselves, that would be their opportunity. It's still it is still kind of an infrastructure. I think he was trying to. Yeah. Yeah. We owned the club. So that's the. The only place where we're going to have these folks take credit cards with the wife. I mean, nowhere else. I don't know why the Alameda Library picked that location for their book sales, but that was that was stuff. It's not. No, it's just city buildings. Yeah. Right now City Hall has wi fi, but no other city buildings have it. But the point is that there might be another funding source for baseline backbone infrastructure. An Alameda point would be Alameda. So I say. Well, look at. My rash, Captain. So I'm not sure if I'm the only council member I'm not aware of whatever it is the experiment you're doing at the club and the vendor, can you can you enlighten the. Person. About that? So if you wanted to take your laptop to the club, you wouldn't be able to connect to the Internet or any application. And so when people rent out that building from the city. I understand the issue. Who is it you and the mayor met with? Oh, it was common networks. Common networks is a new. Yeah, it's a separate company. And their wireless solution, they're very similar to. Yeah. I can't remember what's out there on the Point Unwired. If you've heard of Unwired, but there have very competitive pricing and actual better upload and download speeds. So that's what the individual companies are asking for. So that's an opportunity for them to, you know, do a business arrangement with them. We were just going to test their product on the club to see if it meets our city needs. Well, you know, I think it's something that's of interest to the rest of the council. So thank you for sharing that. All right. Thank you very much. Okay. And our second to the last I'm just going to fly through because our last department is public works. But in between we have a non-departmental, which doesn't actually and I've mentioned this earlier, the request on the next slide is for our homeless assistance program. And so this is transitional housing in between being homeless and providing services. This would be a joint effort from a funding point of view with Alameda Police Department grant and approximately half of it coming from the general fund. And we've been talking to Operation Dignity, but there we're going to continue to look at it. So we just want a amount of funds in there so we can do this additional service to to basically take people out of homelessness so they can focus on getting housing long term. You just clarify, it says the grant. Our police department got that grant for this purpose. Yes. That means yes. It's a thank you. Purpose. That's the kind of funding I'm looking for. Funding streams. Grant free money's good. We received a one time allotment of money. It's not going to be this last year. It was actually written into the governor's state budget. There were it was a restricted grant. There were other things that we could have used it for. But given what we're dealing with at Sweeny Park and elsewhere in town, I decided to throw it all that way. But this is just a one time thing. It's not going to come back next year. It's from the Board of State and Community Corrections. It released the money. Right. Thank you very much. You appreciate. It. Sure. Next up. Public Works Director Garland. Madam Mayor, members of the City Council. I'm Liam Garland with Public Works. I'm going to provide a brief overview of the public works budget, some of the investments we're requesting through the next two years, and then an overview of the capital budget. Before I start, I do want to let you all know that Little Richard did text me to say that he also supports these assets. Yes, we all believe. That we needed taxes. We got that. Yes. He's active on taxes. This lady must go ahead. You may continue. So I'd like to skip to the requests and then I'm happy to. Reverse page and skip right over it. Because we do have a hard stop. Okay. We have a councilmember that's leaving at ten. And we'd like to hear their comments. I will move fast. Oh. So first, let's start with the three general fund requests. The top request is around urgent city building repairs. You may remember. Oh, we were in front of the council talking about the third party run facility condition assessment, which said that we had at about $12 million in urgent repairs that need to be made on our city buildings. We're requesting about a million per year to help us make a bigger dent in this backlog of repairs. So these are going to help replace three rooms long term deferred maintenance at six parks, buildings, City Hall, West Oak Club and the vets building. If this request is declined, will essentially be backing off the needed repairs in the Oak Clubs, the Oak Club and the vets building. So that's where the the approximate $2 million is mostly going to be invested in, if you grant this. Okay. How much could you refresh my memory if this is this the one third of the projects that were not funded when I asked you, okay, you have two thirds of projects that have been funded. You have one third that hasn't. These are all separate projects. So these are we did an in-depth facility condition, condition assessment of every city building. We essentially prioritize those repairs that we want to get done right away because there are either health or safety or for other urgent reasons need to be done. And we're targeting those repairs first. Okay. So are we going to get to the one third of the projects that needed to be funded that do you remember you were advancing money essentially for some other issue? I believe it might have been fire. That was related to the EOC fire station three. Right. And you said you have two thirds of the projects funded. So we didn't have to worry about those. But you had a third, you had it. And I asked, where's that money going to come from? And you said, You don't know yet. So is this are we going to see those projects in this report? Oh, a couple, yes. So some of the the the money you're referring to related to budget savings from projects that had been completed in the past, but we're still sitting on the books. Then there were some projects that where were programed but no longer relevant, so we didn't want to push forward. And then there was a small subset of projects around our I think it was around a roof that we weren't going to replace when we knew a skylight or reverse, that we were going to replace a skylight. If we know in a couple of years we're going to come in and replace a roof. All right. Oh, the next investment we're requesting is around our sidewalks. You know, from the last capital budget that we had, over $10 million backlog in sidewalk repairs. We've managed to bring that down to about $9.3 million. And we're seeking another contribution from the general fund of about 500,000 per year. This would continue a commitment from the general fund for sidewalk repairs and our current budget. It's about 250,000 per year. Without that, additional contribution will do two less miles of sidewalk repairs over the next two years. The Third General Fund ask is related to streetlights. We're going to add a new maintenance and operation program for streetlights. This is in part a result of the passage of the Utility Modernization Act. AMP is transferring over money into the general fund, of which 900,000 is to cover the Street Lights program. So this represents about 600,000 for maintenance and operations. The other 300,000 is going to a capital project which will help us develop the long term ten, 15, 20 year plan for replacement of those assets. Vice mayor, the member. So are these. Positions transferring over from AMP and if so, why? The said it's related to the Uma, but no explained. The current plan is not to transition. The positions over what's budgeted is to have a maintenance worker and as you'll see in a moment, a half time administrative support person to help public works be able to adequately maintain and operate these streetlights. Who we have. Before. Did public works do that? Who does that now? The streetlight maintenance was done by alameda municipal power and i think our h.r. Director is going to push me out of the way. No, i'm not going to push you. And we are. Nobody's pushing anybody. We are still working with AMP and IBEW, the Labor Unit, to determine exactly how this work is going to be performed because we have some meet and confer obligations. So one certainly one of the options is that it would be a maintenance worker who would do the non electrical connectivity work. AMP would maintain an IBEW, the electric can connectivity work. So I guess my question is, are we increasing the cost of this program by transferring it over or is it net neutral? What's the in terms of the overall cost of running the maintenance program? I you know, I we should probably get that for you, but based on the positions, I would not see a net cost increase. Okay. But I would want to clarify that. Okay. And I guess. Remember. My question. Similar to that, I mean, if this meeting confer fails, I mean, then what happens? Because it sounds like there are some positions that. What we've done. I'm thinking of eliminating it amp. We what we've done is we the way the budget is built, however it comes out, we're going to be okay. We haven't done anything with eliminating the position at AMP, although it is vacant at this point. So as we work through that process will resolve how we're going to do the work. But the ideal would be to transfer just the maintenance work from AMP to public works. And if if you don't reach that agreement, then are we just going to impose our will on them or how is that going to work? And that would be an organizational decision. Right now, we're still talking and hoping to be able to resolve it. So what does that mean, that the council would have to weigh in or it would just be done at the staff level? Typically. I mean, obviously, if you had wanted to weigh in, we would certainly give you that opportunity and check back in with you. We're hoping, you know, certainly not to have to impose. And so we're still talking and providing them with all the information that they're requesting. I mean, I would like to have that come back to us, even if it's at an impasse. Okay. We will do that. Vice Mayor And then member matter, S.E.. So you said that the position is currently not filled. So if there's a. Streetlight. Issue right now, who. Fixes it? Well, we have somebody who was doing the work, and I actually would have to look at our AMP General Manager for that question. So this is a group effort. Good evening. Nick Operacoes, general manager at AMP. We do have a person who was occupying that position, the Street Light Maintenance Technician. We opened up what we had another open position which we encouraged them to apply, operate under the assumption that this would transition over to public works. They successfully got that position. They've moved into that position. But for the interim, until we make the transition, they are actually performing that function and they will continue to do so until we sort out some of the things that were talked about tonight. I remember Matt addressing. Should this come back to the council. I also would like to have. The City attorney. Look at what's being proposed and what lies within the duties of the city manager as far as running the management of the city and what lies in the duties of the council as far as approving budget and or providing direction to the city manager? My question is going to be does the revenue stream currently. This has been happening to AMP it sounds like. So they must be paying for it somehow. So when the work comes now out in maintenance and operations program to the general fund, does the revenue stream follow that job to the general fund? So as as part of the UMA, there was a transfer approved of approximately $900,000. So that revenue has been transferred over to the general fund. And as Liam spoke about earlier, that 600,000, it's part of that 900,000 and then there's an additional 300,000. My understanding is going into capital reserve. So then when this is presented, can this show net somehow as long as that 900,000 is not already being used for something else? It doesn't just show 600,000. Thank you. Yeah. And over 300 are going to go to just projects or. To a capital project related to the streetlights. So the first thing we want to do is get a really accurate assessment of the condition of the streetlights and then come up with a 10 to 20 year replacement plan. And that 300,000 is just sitting in a dedicated streetlight fund, not being touched for anything else in the interim. You got it. Thank you. Up next, there is some more minor personnel adjustments we're making off of the general fund. So these are non general fund dollars. We're looking for some additional administrative support, especially around our special districts. Our revenue and responsibilities around special districts have increased significantly over the past few years. Likewise, in sewer and urban runoff, we see a real need with our pump stations to have a four person who really is a master of those electrical components. And then finally, if you look down at the sewer fund, we're looking at eight vehicle replacements. The average age of these vehicles is over 20 years old. And if you look over to the right, these one time requests probably look pretty significant given it's only eight vehicles. But one of those vehicles is one of these large vac on these big trucks you see with the vacuum attached to it, which is almost itself a $375,000 vehicle. Oh, I should note here to answer an earlier question, we do have pool cars for sure. And one of the things you don't see on this slide, but you will on a subsequent slide is Public Works is requesting to replace some vehicles through the vehicle replacement fund. It's called the Equipment Replacement Fund. So essentially that's where public works and other departments have squirreled away money to make these very replacements. And they're we're pretty confident we can get six hybrid and or electric vehicles as pool cars over the next two years. Want to quickly go through the. I'm sorry if you could go back. Okay. So on the eight vehicle replacements average 21 years old, can you bring the mileage on those things? You know, so we have more information than the sidewalks. It's currently 250,000 a year and then you're you're estimating 500,000 a year. All right. Is it for the same length of repairs or why the double? This enables us to do more work. So the doubling is more just an assessment of, hey, we've got this backlog. We're looking for as many resources, i.e., money as we can get to try to cut down on that backlog. So has the price per mile increased or that's the same? You're doing double. You're doing twice as many miles with the 500,000. Oh, no. I mean, prices are going up. As you know, construction costs are going up around the Bay Area. We're seeing that start to come through on our bid results. But this is not specifically to account for those cost increases. This is just to suggest, hey, if we want to reduce this backlog, which is something we hear about all the time from the public, this is a good way of reducing that backlog. Am I making sense or. No, not the question was a little simpler. And Brody, I mean it. I'm sorry. I don't mean to step in your toes, but a250 we are getting x miles, and at 500 we are getting y miles. What is the X in the Y? I think without I think that's kind of what the mayor was asking. Yes. So at had $1,000,000, you can get two miles of repairs done. And so and then it was at one mile for. So we're just going from 1 to 2. Isn't that kind of what you were. Yeah. So the price. Per. Okay. So it's not an increased price per mile. It's just that you're doing more. Yeah. I'm sorry if I'm not doing a good job, but clearly I'm not. This is a part of a sidewalk project that comes from other funding sources as well. I'm just talking about the general fund contribution to that project. Should the council award or adopt a budget with these numbers? It would be approximately a $1.5 million per year that we're spending on sidewalk repairs. This is just the general fund portion which I'm recommending move from what in the past two years has been at 250,000 per year, up to 500,000 per year. So this is what the city's cost is. It's not like sometimes, you know. People have to pay for different things. This is the net. General fund versus a special or. Just if you get other moneys to offset any of this? Oh. No. These this is. This is essentially all costs. Not about revenue. Okay. Member matter. I think. Mr. Garland, you said that if we don't. Honor. This request will do two less miles of sidewalk over these two years. Right. Yup. So it's either we do what we do and keep doing what we're doing, or we get two extra miles a year by allocating this money. Thank you. Yes. Mayor member Ashcroft. And just for clarification, I asked Mr. Rodham so that million if we were to spend a million, 1.5 million, the million is coming from the gas tax, is that correct? The balance is mostly from gas and I think a bit of construction improvement tax as well. Okay. And and then, you know, something to always way is that we do pay out some money in settlements for people who slip and fall and trip on our sidewalks. And, you know, some of them are in pretty scary conditions. So, um, thank you. Um, I, and I do want to commend public works because, you know, we just came through a very rainy season. We had some high winds and yet I don't think we had major incidents that weren't addressed immediately, like streets flooding or and even that night, the 20 some trees came down. I just this is part of what makes a city safe. And there's all different kinds of. I'd like to remind the council that there has been extensive sewer work this past year. And thanks to Aaron Smith. Yeah. In the audience. Are there new positions you're asking for to is this the end of the request? That is the end of the requests. I will run through the capital budget in less than a few minutes. I just want to hit up here just how busy your city departments are. If you look at capital expenditures over the past ten years. We are running last year and this year at 2 to 3 times what those historic levels are. That impacts finance in terms of accounts payable. It impacts APD with a couple of significant parks projects, the transportation planning unit, and also in our engineering division, which is only added one full time staff member over the past five years . So a lot of activity and not a lot of people wouldn't be a capital budget update without talking about pavement here. You can see that our current pavement condition index, remember this is the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's assessment is about 74. This number ticks up and down depending on when you run it. That's really good news over the when we were in these seats two years ago or most of us, we were at 67, which is at the upper end range of. We're now solidly into the good range in terms of our pavement condition, which is a big step forward compared to Alameda in 2009. We're at 62. So the low end affair and this compares really favorably to our neighbors, Oakland, Berkeley and San Leandro as well. I'll turn to our urban forest. Our capital budget will again propose to Maine to trim more than 7000 street trees. Just want to note that our street trees are really hard at work, even if it seems like they're not. They are sequestering over 9000 tons of of pollutants. They are also taking millions of gallons of stormwater and they're essentially relieving the load from our storm drains through themselves, essentially. And they're adding to our home values by over $60 million. These trees are hard at work. I want to. The second to last point I'm going to make tonight is our most significant challenge moving forward is around stormwater infrastructure. And this stormwater fee that we've talked about on several occasions is being flat. Since 2004, we've got up to $45 million in repairs that are needed for our stormwater infrastructure. Yet if we look forward to the third year out, so the first non budgeted year we might be facing operations cuts. So a stormwater fund's got a capital component and an operations component. There will not be a possibility of funding a capital component without some change and will even face operations cuts in fiscal year 1920. However, the State Senate Bill 231 has passed out of the Senate. It's sitting in the Assembly would essentially allow us to adjust rates on storm and stormwater just like we do on sewer, which is less costly. And you can essentially do the rate setting in one fell swoop, swoop for the next five years. So I'm hoping to share good news in the next couple of months that that if adopt or passed by the assembly, adopted by the governor were really get us into a different place here in the city of Alameda . We're not the only city facing this crunch. Lots of us are. Finally, this is sort of a this is almost all good news, but just a bit of a challenge for us over the next two years. If you look at this is a map of all of our our capital projects for the next two years. But the most significant part I want to highlight here is $42 million in one time transportation grants. You've probably heard a little bit about these. Kudos to Jennifer Odd, her transportation planning unit, chapter Public Works and some of our engineers who supported that grant making effort and a lot of other folks throughout the city. However, there's a challenge built in there, which is that is a lot of money for us to be able to execute on, and much of that work happens in year three. So it's a lot of design and planning work in advance of the construction work in year three. And with that, I'll close and answer any questions you may have. Member Matter Can. You give us a brief update on any budget impacts of the consent decree for our sewer system replacement? So far, none. And I'm going to turn to Aaron Smith just to confirm about. As long as we have none. Okay. And there's no request related to it. No budget request relating to it. Yes. No. Thank you. You do the shout out for plowshares. Okay. The shout out for plowshares, where essentially we are able to source a lot of our local new trees through plowshares, which obviously has a lots of benefits to the participants within their programs and as job training as well. As a 90% of our new tree planting. Thank you. Good evening again, Madam Mayor. Council members. Nancy Bronstein, human resources manager. I think I went. You speak. Up. Yeah. You got to. Pick up a little. Nap, so I have to move my slide. Back then. Yes. There you go. This this slide just shows is the summary of the new positions that are being requested tonight. I did want to point out that there are different funds for funding these positions. Additionally, in addition to the new positions that you're seeing here, we are currently reviewing the classifications of several positions to make sure that those positions are correctly classified or different classification would be a better fit for the job duties if we have those recommendations ready to go prior to June six, we do plan to include them in the budget. If not, then we may bring them in a separate agenda item. Those there won't be any financial request associated with those. Any cost is built into the budget. It should be very limited. So it would just be position requested that you may see in addition to these. And are there any questions on question number matter? On the city manager position. I know the position is authorize. Was it funded in the previous budget and money not spent or. I didn't get a chance to look at that. The position was funded. However, we did take vacancy savings from the position almost 100%. But it was in the it was in the previous two years. It was in the budget and then at mid mid-cycle we took it out. We took it out. Okay. So this would be re and re adding it back for this budget if you did that. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Oh, okay. So when I look at these, I think that sometimes these were not the net costs. Some departments were saving money from some of other things so that they were going to be able to come up with these to pay for these somehow. I think that was primarily parks. Right? So I think that that should be noted when this comes back to us. Any time there is either grant money or some savings of shifting funds. There's not all a new ask like that noted for each of these. And and what we said at the beginning of this work budget work session is this is a raw budget that council asked for more input rather than having us bring a budget that is all wrapped together in a bow. And so what we'd appreciate tonight if the council has direction on these positions to let us know and then we will put those numbers in, they'll still be flexible enough that you can make changes on the six. But if we if we hear nothing from the council, then staff will look at these and put in our estimate or what you will consider on June six, which is actually means that the budget goes out next week. All right. A member matters. And if you want to make any comments first where you go. Yes. In looking at these, I think the. Once that I see is indispensable. Are the parks budget additional persons and the information technology of. I think those general fund contributions, I think are are. Absolutely. Essential to moving us forward, especially with the additional load in both of those departments. And I think even that investment with. The $3 million council member Otis comments on scope creep and considered. I think those are things that have to be that we have to do those things as far as the city manager's position. You know, I. I, I don't know the best way to do it, but I stated what I wanted is as far as what to be done. But how to do it. I'm. I'll leave that that is on management to do that. And I think the same with the fire department. And the thing that still sticks with me a little bit is that this person is replacing a person who was dedicated by Grant to doing very restrictive duties, and they're not going to be doing those duties or you know, I don't know what that is, but it sounded like we could. We could get along without it. Just by shared load. So. Again, that's a management issue. I'm not inclined to support that. And I think from the library it is coming from the library fund and the I 100% support the extra days being added back to the branches. We've put a lot of money in the taxpayers to tax themselves, to keep the libraries open and to support the branches. And we need to honor that. So we're just doing the new positions now, and. That's what I was going to do. Okay. So whatever your plan is, it's fine with me. So when it comes back, I mean, I could add these true. But it would be great if we could just see like the different fund sub totals as the general fund is the number that, you know, I'm kind of focusing on. I guess I have a question of staff because back on page 23 of the presentation, we said that our response was commitment to fiscal responsibility, only critical hires using general fund dollars. So of these I mean, do you consider them all critical hires under that criteria? I mean, I remember when we had the referrals, we had to sit there and think, well, we may have projected this idea and brought it forward, but, you know, is it critical as an employer or is it urgent is an important. So I'm going to ask you the same question. I mean, of these I mean, do they all fit that criteria that that you said we should be judging these by? And I don't know. I don't care who answers it, but. They have different levels of importance in what we can look at. And when we bring this back on June six, after we get some feeling from the council, we would bring back what? I think are the most critical and how we can make it done. We have to have a balanced budget and so we will put positions in and take them out and so we can figure out how to balance the budget. Because that would be my criteria in evaluating these is is it a critical hire that we're using general fund money for? So if you tell me that is and there's I'll be supportive of it. And there's four general fund positions. Right? But one of them really isn't a new one. It's just the money's coming from a different source. So we're really adding three people but four positions. Remember Ashcroft, I. Think the vice mayor. Was you know. He was ready. I'm I'm also interested in in getting a better analysis of what's. What are what are the critical positions and even outside of the general fund ones, especially because some of the other positions do receive. You know, when we were talking about it, the money is coming essentially from the general fund and then being moved into that account . So I think I would like to know and get that analysis. I'd also like to understand better, you know, some of these positions that are being put forward. I think the only one that really talked about relative to our counsel referrals, what, you know, what would actually be worked on. So there is a. Workload that's outstanding, basically, that are directives of council. And so. Which which. Positions actually fall. In line with covering existing council directives. So where is there an existing need based off of the directives that council has already given? And we can look at that through our referral list and some of the other things that we've done. So I would I would like to understand that to a certain extent. I know that Debbie Potter briefly talked about it relative to the permit position and the inspector position. And, you know, based off of working on some of the council referrals relative to things that were coming down the pipeline and the ordinances that that we've given direction on. So to the extent that that can be done. Right. And where where is the existing workload that's going to be covered by these positions? I would also like to understand that. And that was the permit tech right. Positions to free up some of those staff. Right. Combined with assistance. Right. But there's also, if you think back to the Community Development Department request, there was also the building inspector of trying trying to be more customer service oriented. Right. Which brings in revenue. As well. Mm hmm. Development is on track faster, write a happier community as well as well. And I think that goes back to the the earlier input from the mayor about understanding where certain things are going to be, what's the net cost like if there is going to be potential revenue generated or . Grants that could. Cover certain things? I think noting that helps us out in terms of understanding whether or not we're actually going to be able to. Balance the budget based off of different estimates. I remember Astra. Thank you. So this isn't easy. Nothing we do lately is easy. I even though it's not in this upcoming fiscal year, the fire department division chief request gives me pause. But we'll have time to see how this the the work rolls out. Now that we've got three positions funded or about to be funded for the Fire Prevention Bureau. And I'll just say I have concerns about adding this position. From where I sit today. The the recreation and parks positions. I. I'm I'm fine with that. I. We are adding more, more parks. And as Amy and Lily noted, we we have kept the number the same, and yet we're taking out a lot more. I would be just because we've got to whittle this budget down. I look at everything very closely, those first two positions, the combination building inspector and the permit tag. While I like happy customers, I mean, there was a reason some years ago we went from a five day workweek to a four day workweek because it resulted in budget savings. And what I would like, though, if it could be done fairly readily, is. A sense of so for this position or these two positions, what kind of revenue would they be bringing into the cities? So maybe the I mean, if you know it now or when we come back, so maybe that, you know, it's the net. So we're spending this, but we can assume, you know, that now, Miss Bronstein, or. What I'm wondering is the revenue paying for the positions. So essentially it's the revenue pays for these positions, right. So no general fund, it would be right. I get that it's in a general fund expenditure base, but beyond. Yeah, okay. Okay. Um, and. The Assistant City Manager position. I, I do understand that we throw a lot at that office. I. I always like us to be able to do more with less. We have a proposition, a lovely person. Is there any way that that position could be expanded to pick up some of the workload you're looking to address with this with this assistant city manager? Just, you know, trying to think. Creatively, but. These are these are ongoing costs. And on the I mean, those are some big numbers. What I would also like to take a look at is. We need both the systems, the systems and as I get a little more readily but the office assistant, is that something that can be picked up somewhere else? So I'm just, you know, maybe compressing positions. Public works. I am their workhorses and I'm not going to I, I won't I don't have any suggestions or reservations about those two listed positions. So I'm, I'm looking at everything even though they're, it's not all from the general fund, but it is, of course, the general fund. We need to get it under control. Okay. Those are my thoughts. Thank you. Okay. So I pretty much will just echo my counterparts up here. One question I had was. Does this include the benefits when you're saying, you know, you're covering this is at the salary plus benefits, everything just so there's no no touching of the general funding we know that are being covered. Okay. So then I too will be looking for the know the net. So that makes a lot of these make more sense then I think it's very important to be transparent and show all that. So the net I need to see, I appreciate, you know, everybody's common in regards to urgent and important. Can we stagger all of that better analysis? I'm not going to be excited. About adding a. Chief $360,000. I'm also concerned about the assistant city manager at another. Oh, yeah. $300,000. I can't go there personally. I think we're going to have to tighten our belts there and the salary, if in fact, because in the past, when we did have two assistant city managers, we didn't have a pillow. And I don't know what her salary is and benefits and all that, but that is another person working in the city manager's office. So I think we need to take that into consideration. But at the end of the day, I'm very happy that we have to be able to balance our budget because that does force us to make these tough decisions. And I appreciate everyone's presence here at taking all the questions. Yeah. And I want to do a shout out to our police department because no new positions. Thank you, Chief. That's good. All right. Well, and there's a couple of remaining slides, but it depends on whether the council wants to provide input on them. The next one is vehicle replacement requests and then department requests that went beyond personnel. Oh. Like on. Member matters. First. Thank you. You know, the vehicles are the vehicles. And I think of the irony. I support the comment about a pull a pull vehicle that's available. I understand that the fire crews go with their vehicles so that when that radio squawks, they have to run. So. I think that's I'll leave it to management to figure out the best way to get the most life out of the vehicles with those constraints. And the only other thing I would ask to look into, especially if some of the newer electric cars are being looked at, is that we don't have to buy them because the technology move so fast and they're very expensive to maintain in the out years. So especially when the battery packs have to be replaced. So please do some studies. We don't need to own things. And no thank you. And the only other thing, I just want to retreat just one quick second back to that, because Ms.. Potter mentioned that the permit techs and the INS inspectors are being and the planning people are being paid for out of fees. That's the reason I brought up having a general fund planner type, because the fees are the top priority. They have to serve the customer and there's nobody serving the the city as the customer. So all these ordinances that are city. Benefits that talk about the building and the maintaining of the city, I believe need to have somebody who works for this, works for the city, not for the applicant. So does that translate to another general funded position? I think we get it out of that. I'm not going to tell you how to do this, but the assistant city manager is the pot of gold to use that out of that. Let's go next. Nairobi. I'm going next, so I'm sorry. Can I clarify one thing? So for the permit fees we collect as a portion of the permit fee, the community planning fund. So actually what we do take in, we do collect money that can be used for the kinds of ordinances and other kinds of work that you're talking. Well, as long as it will be used and we get those things in sync with the projects, because the projects are rolling along, they get first start, stop ship waste, got first, you know, just fine. And these things are still waiting. I just want you to know, too, that we are planning to bring the M zoning referral on June 6th. So that's the plan for now. So that's. Thank you. That's coming. Yeah, it's that's the plan. I'll just say that's the plan. We'll see how the agenda goes. But we do have it's really more a staff in capacity. The funding is there and it's just the the staffing capacity. And we have the ability to fund that kind of work without tapping the general fund, and we're prepared to do that with the recommendation of the permit. I'm just saying that SHIPWAY has got time because they pay an application fee, they got them in the queue and we have to do it. And zoning and inclusionary housing that we could get are not in the case. It's actually the permit, the state permit streamlining law that requires us to when permits come in. So. Well, that's why that's. Why I'm making a big deal out of it. Yes, absolutely. So I just want to clarify that we can do that kind of work with the non general fund funded money and we do collect a portion of the fees paid goes for community planning efforts for the initiatives that you're talking about and can we can do that. So quick question. Is this our last item for feedback? No, but I think general feedback would be. I just wanted to make. Sure that any. One time would be the one time. All of his feedback. Before and just mentioned. The library. Because I'm going to be going to be leaving shortly. Yes. Thank you. I really appreciate this. My niece appreciates it. I think based on the front, the the forward slide and the forward slide, I think has been has permeated. This is the the PERS curve that has $45 million at the at the apex of it. I'm going to be looking first to put one time money into that. That's where I'm looking first. And I think we have to. I will. You know, I think when we all get in the mix and I look at the minutes of this meeting, here are the people's input of I think the the technology upgrades are and the the outside general fund funded requests that none of these requests have a purse charge attached to them. They don't carry a purse burden. So if the fund has the money, we spend it. If. We have to put general fund money to it. I think that's where we have to balance off against. Funding the retirement and the other post-employment benefit burden that is is not going to go away. And to the mayor's point is, we don't want to be shutting parts of the city down to try and backfill that. So we have to act now. Any other comments before you leave? Know that I have an amazing trip. Thank you. I much appreciate it. All right. Thank you, Madam Mayor. And have a safe trip. So. What I kind of didn't see on that. Can you go back to not that one. The one after that. One more. That one. So again, there's all these large numbers. No. And then. See, I didn't. No, not this one. This is the ongoing the one time money. And I didn't see a total, you know, by again, I could add this up, but it kind of seems like it's hidden. It should just pop out because I don't know if it's like $10 Million or whatever it is. So I agree with my colleague about I think one time money should be put away into these pension trust funds, whatever it is that we decide to do. But, you know, to the extent you do have general fund one time requests that again, meet your criteria, use of one time funds for one time efforts with long term efficiencies. You know, I'd like to have that the kind of the gauge that when you do come back, you know, I'm not saying I like to look at this holistically. So, you know, I could pick and choose one or the other and I'm not going to do that. I'm going to trust you to bring back a budget. One time funds that that meets that criteria 59. So. But also. We. Okay. So that but there's no total on here. I mean, I could add it up, but. I agree. We should have. 1.2. 1.7. You know, 3.2. So in another, you know, 5 million, 6 million the next year. I mean, that way we can see because what is our our number that we have is a 10 million. So is it 10 million then? We want to do 5 million here, 5 million here or 3 million here or 7 million here. So let's see what that number is. I think it was ten. Maybe it's something different and then kind of come up with the different projections. I mean, I don't have a problem with any of these individually, so I'm not going to, you know, pick and choose. But I'm trusting you to come back with with a list that balances the need to start funding this trust and that these one time efforts on long term efficiencies. Amber Ashcraft. When we come back on the sixth, I'd like the council to consider a policy for officially what we will do with one time many. So it's it's just there and easy to do. And I think I'm hearing some direction I would like to consider. I would like to suggest that we consider an allocation of 50% of any one time money that comes in goes to the trust. And and then we can have discussion of where the other 50% would go. But I think it's the kind of discipline that the kinds of numbers we saw require. In other comments. I've commented enough. All right, Vice Mayor. I think, you know, in a lot of ways, the the liabilities, what they are, they're our responsibility and their responsibility, their vested interests that that exists that we have to that we have to meet. We don't really have a choice in that nothing comes. We don't if we don't take care of that, we're going to have bigger problems. So I don't know that 50% is necessarily enough. I think sometimes we might need to dig dig a little deeper. I'm fine. I'm fine with setting a baseline. But I also think that when we when we're looking forward at what's coming, I think especially from the outset, in the beginning, being as, you know, prudent as possible, I think early on is going to be helpful. And I you know, I think. Ultimately it is a policy decision. But at the end of the day, when we're when we know that those are. Important things that we need to have set asides to have them just be left is kind of TBD. And I know it's a policy decision, but it you know it. It's going to be the largest expenditure, I think, based off of what I'm hearing from my colleagues and my own preference. So in terms of one time requests. I do think that the i.t. There is an efficiency need relative to the i.t expenditures. So I'm more inclined to look at something like that. And I think also with some of our. Some of our. You know, the building maintenance issues. I don't know if there's if there's a plan in terms of getting other funds to help us with those sorts of things. Or what's possible relative or what our plans are for the buildings in question. That's something that I would like more information on, because I think it's one thing if we're we're making an expenditure to put off additional costs later, later on. But if we don't have a plan for what's going to be, you know, what the usage is, I think we're. We're not best served by by making those sorts of expenditures without that information. I also think that, you know, with the fire, fire engine, ambulance, things like that, where there's expenditures that are being made relative to the maintenance we really need, what have we spent specifically on those vehicles that are that we're trying to replace? Like what? What is going to be the ongoing cost if it's not that? And so having those vehicle specific nets would be helpful and looking at them not just for this year but the year prior as well. Right. Since it's a two year budget, what have we spent in the last two years relative to the vehicles that we're trying to replace in terms of the the vehicle, the vehicles for the other usages? I think, you know, pool vehicles are great. I think looking at the, you know, wherever we can reduce other expenditures, if we can look at electric so that we're not using so we can reduce other expenses, I think that'd be great. But I'm I'm also a. Little bit concerned about the upkeep of those vehicles and if the upkeep of those vehicles is going to be more expensive and that sort of thing. And what sorts of, you know, what are we looking at relative to that? If there's if there's costs that could. Pop up that we're not budgeting. For. So I think if we can have that information along with the totals and and have the breakdown relative. To the general fund. Everything that's outside of the general fund, if we've got the money there, I don't really have a problem with those expenditures. Member Ashcroft. And just for clarification on the building repairs, and this was before the vice mayor's time on the council, public works actually did a very extensive survey of all of our city owned buildings, and they did essentially a triage list. There's photos and it was it was pretty alarming. So I think they have, in essence, their marching orders about where in what order they're doing those repairs. Right. And I and I understand that. And I and I am aware of that. I think my question is really, you know, what is our plan? I think we also want to know because we're going to have questions, why are you fixing up these buildings? Do we have a plan for what their usage is? And I think if we can at least spend a little time talking about. That so that it's not just. Which I mean, I get the triage portion, but I think the. Inevitable second question is. You're working on Carnegie. What are what are our plans for Carnegie? So if we have plans and if there's you know, if we're going to be renting it out or using it for different functions, could we use. Those funds. Potentially to offset general funds. Or expenditures, or are those going to cover other things relative to the building moving forward that need to happen? And so may. I? Yeah. Thank you. So when I when I see the, the, the Oh. Club on the list and it's a roof I think was the, was the item. And I understand you need to replace new roofs. The building is really in such deplorable state. That condition that. It just. I mean. Maybe that's what we just need to do to be able to keep using it, because I know it does bring in some revenue, but it's I mean, the restrooms, the kitchen and many of the public spaces, it's. It's deplorable. So I but again, we'll just, you know, keep that on the radar. And separate from this budget, we can bring just the item of buildings back to council to talk about a long term plan and and include the auto club and Carnegie and any other buildings on the list. And we can we can certainly maybe have placeholders for these these particular capital expenditures without deciding to actually spend the money until we have a clear sense of. Right. And and why. And and that's the idea behind a CFP, is it it does allocate or estimate amounts for projects and does a plan for when we think it will be done. But if it's a capital project, construction project, it comes to council for approval as well. And if there's a design, it would go through the process to any process. So, yes, you'll see that, too. Okay. Thank you. And we're going to. Have one quick clarification. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So on this idea that we would. Do 50% of one time money to this trust. I mean, how are we defining one time money? Because, for example, transfer tax is technically one time money, but we build that into our budget. At some level, right? I think we're defining as surplus surplus 25%. The previous year. Okay. So I just want to be clear that we and. Surplus is funds that we receive over 25% reserve. Okay. I'm good with that. Okay. Um, so I wanted to thank you everyone for being here. Council staff. I don't think there's any members of the public hanging out with us. That's quite a few nights in a row. Okay. When I look at this, I agree with the comments in regards to. Um. Okay. Analyzing the automobile issues. What's the analysis? Are we spending more maintaining? You know, there's got to be some ways that you actually figure out when is the right time to buy versus just keep maintaining my mileage. I'd like to see on any of the vehicles, not just the years. I do want to make sure we're just using best use of our vehicles. Um, in regards to the, my priorities when I look at this thing, the building maintenance, the roof. So I think that million dollars, I think if we're going to have the buildings, we're going to have to fix the roofs. So if if we don't want to I mean, I'm happy to sit down. We can do the analysis. But if we're keeping those buildings, we need the roofs. So the the homeless assistance the net dollar amount on this because this is actually it doesn't take into consideration the grant that the police got for. So I want to see net dollars. It's 61,000 is the net. Right. So on the summary here that I had this for, I'm not going to page 60 has the 125 there. 125 but in the note 61,000. On the pitch. I'm looking at the homeless. I think that's good. OC The purchase of the Union Pacific Remnant parcels, I'd actually like information on that. I think that that is a long term investment for our community that we are trying, trying to figure out how to use bicycle and better access. So for me that is could very well be a worthy way to spend money in regards to the long term of our community, the historic buildings. I agree with vice mayor in regards to, um, you know, what are we doing with these buildings as much as we might like them, there's a lot of we have a lot of older buildings. We can't maintain them all. Not with this budget is a priority unless we have a plan for them. The $83 million, I think that's just we don't have that kind of money or have to figure out a plan. Um. The camera readers. I think that's very important. I think that that's. Good use of modern technology and we have problems. And if you can do with technology, let's figure out a way to do that. So that and that's just turning 50,000 each year. That's much more, you know, to me, that's a good use of the money. Office reconfiguration city manager. I don't even know what that is. That's another hundred thousand dollars if it's connected to another city man. Assistant City Manager I'm probably not interested. But oh, and then in regards to the pension liability, setting aside money for that. That's not my top priority because I don't think we have a long term plan if we're not ready to get serious and have a serious discussion about how we actually accumulate those costs. I don't think it's the best use of using one time money for the city, and I would prefer using it for roofs and other things. And when we're ready to sit down and have a serious discussion about how this stuff gets accumulated, then start investing the people's money. Otherwise, all we're doing is we're going on. We are continuing a course that cannot be sustained and is not sustainable. So for me, not a priority until we have that serious conversation. All right. That being said, everyone, have a good evening. And this meeting is adjourned 5 minutes after ten.

A resolution approving a proposed Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and W. L. Contractors, Inc. to rebuild traffic signals within the City. Amends an on-call contract with W. L. Contractors, Inc. by adding $4.4 million for a new total contract amount of $6,314,207.80 and extending the term by two years for a new end date of 9-30-18 to rebuild existing outdated traffic signals within the City (201522741-01). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 12-19-16. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 11-17-16.

DenverCityCouncil_11282016_16-1121

Very good. Thank you, Mr. President. I just don't want to vote during a block vote on $80 million without the public understanding what we're doing. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Madam Madam Secretary, next item, please, which is one, one, two, one and kills 15. Your question. Thank you. This one's a little simpler. I don't know Angela or John. Maybe we could address this, but in the WRAL contractor's contract to update our traffic signals throughout the city, some that need updating. Do we know how many of these include my. My nemesis, the flashing yellow arrow? Can you? Cosmo. My name is John U at the public works transportation and mobility. The that this contract is an on call contract so there is. No identify locations where there are going to be any flashing yellow arrows identified. With. Okay thank you Angela maybe you can help them. Last time we met on this, I talked about driver confusion. People don't understand. What does this mean differently than a green ball? Which. And the answer is it means nothing differently. I still see a lot of driver confusion around these intersections. And we talked last year about doing some public education and I haven't seen it, has it occurred and I just missed it yet. We did develop a video that we put on YouTube and we sent it out to we sent it out on our social media network and there was a press release that went out as well. I remember that, okay, we're not doing any essays or anything. We haven't done any pieces. Okay. So we've mostly done it through social media. All right. Thank you. In the meantime, an acquaintance of the daughter of an acquaintance of mine was in an accident at one of these installations because of the confusion over them. So I'd like to see that ramped up if we could. Thank you. That's all. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn, we all have our nemesis Sunk City Council. Madam Secretary, next item. Council on article. You are calling this item up for a vote? Yes, sir. Right. Councilman Espinosa, will you please put Council Bill 1087 on the floor for publication?

AN ORDINANCE relating to the Seattle Fire Department’s fire prevention services; amending Sections 22.602.010, 22.602.020, 22.602.045, 22.602.050, 22.602.070, 22.602.090, and 3.102.010 of, repealing Sections 3.16.130 and 22.600.050 of, and adding a new Section 3.16.131 to the Seattle Municipal Code.

SeattleCityCouncil_01042022_CB 120245

Will the clerk please read the short title of item number one? And to the record, the Report of the Public Safety and Human Services Committee. Agenda Item one. Council Bill 120245. An ordinance relating to the Seattle Fire Department's Fire Prevention Services amending sections of the Seattle Missile Code and repealing sections of the Seattle Ms.. Code. The committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you. Casper Verbal, you are the chair of this committee. Go ahead. Sir. Madam President, on December 14. The Public Safety and Human Services Committee heard Council Bill 12. 0245 and unanimously voted it out of committee. The bill amends the C.I.A. code to align with the. Current version of the Seattle Fire. Code and with Seattle Fire Department. Practices. The legislation includes an effective date of March 1st, 2022, allowing time for Seattle I.T. to make the requisite changes in the city's permitting system. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Humble. Are there any comments you're seeing or hearing? None. Well, the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill for bold. All right. Lewis Hi. Morales. Yes. Machado. I. Nelson. I. Peterson. Hi. Sergeant. Yes. Strauss. Yes. Council. President. Whereas I nine in favor and unopposed. Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. And, Madam Clerk, will you please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? We're going to move to items two and three. So will the clerk please read items two and three into the record gender items two and three appointments.

On the message and order, referred on January 26, 2022, Docket #0165, authorizing the City of Boston to accept and expend the amount of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00) in the form of a grant for the No Kid Hungry Grant, awarded by Share Our Strength to be administered by the New Urban Mechanics. The grant will fund a Fellowship to pilot solutions for increased access to healthy food for children and families that experience economic insecurity and food insecurity, the Committee submitted a report recommending that the order ought to pass.

BostonCC_02162022_2022-0165

01650165 message in order authorizing the city of Boston to accept and expend the amount of $200,000 in the form of a grant for the No Kid Hungry grant awarded by sheer strength to be administered by the new urban mechanics. The grant will fund a fellowship to pilot solutions for increased access to healthy food for children and families that experience economic insecurity and food insecurity. Thank you. The chair recognizes Councilor Braden, who is the chair of the Committee on Strong Women, Families and Communities Council. Braden. You have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. This, as already mentioned, this is a matter sponsored by the mayor and referred to the committee on January 26, 2022. And we had a hearing on February 14th, 2022, where public comment was taken. The administration was represented by Ms.. Hayden Kim, Deputy Director of Planning and Development of the Mayor's Office of Food Access. Mr. Christopher Carter, Chair of the Mayor's Office of New Urban Mechanics. The No Kid Hungry. Crafted an inaugural fellowship program that would provide city innovation teams with a fellow dedicated to using human centered design to tackle hunger, challenges and bust. Boston is one of only three cities selected for the grant awarded by share strength of $200,000 each. This grant will be used to fund the fellows salaries for over 18 to 24 month period for the food security silo to conduct a human centered design process to improve, improve food access and launch improvement strategies are programs administered by the Mayor's Office of Urban Mechanics. The fellow will address any stigma associated with accessing food security resources and expanding community outreach by providing access to culturally competent foods. Increasing awareness of available resources for families and children in need with within their community, and empowering families by offering programs that utilize food options and choice. Passage of this dockets will authorize the city to expand these funds and hire a fellow to develop solutions to increase access to healthy food for our children and families who experience economic insecurity and food insecurity. As chair of the Committee of Strong Women, Families and Communities, I recommend that this adopt this docket up to pass. Thank you. Thank you. Counsel Braden, the chair and the Committee of Strong Women, Families and Communities seeks acceptance of the committee report and passage of Docket 0165. All those in favor say I oppose any. The ayes have it. Docket 0165 has passed. Mr. Couric, please read.

A proclamation designating May 17 through May 23 as “Public Works Week in Denver” and congratulating the Denver Public Works Department’s ten employees of the year for 2014.

DenverCityCouncil_05182015_15-0320

quality, cost effective services to the citizens of Denver. And. WHEREAS, Denver Public Works Services are an integral part of our residents everyday lives. With programs that include street sweeping, recycling, refuse collection, pothole repair and street paving. And. Whereas, Denver Public Works enhances the quality of life in our city by managing and maintaining public infrastructure, including city rights of way streets, alleys on street parking, drainage ways, sewers, bridges, traffic signals, street markings and signage, as well as contracting, procurement, cash sharing, and permitting programs that meet the needs of the public. And. Whereas, Denver Public Works continues to make significant contributions to our built environment managing the planning, design and construction of public infrastructure and new transportation options, including installing Denver's first protected bikeway and permitting the city's first on street public bike corrals. And. Whereas, as our city grows, Denver Public Works will focus. We'll work to accommodate more people with a strategic plan that focuses on smart growth. Smart being an acronym and making Denver more. And this is what it stands for sustainable, multimodal, attractive, resilient and transparent. And. Whereas, the Council specifically recognizes and congratulates the Denver Public Works Employees of the Year for 2014 for their achievements. Michael Lopez Capital Projects Management. Rudy Close with Finance and Administration. Dwain Fields and Fleet Management. Rachel Race Oh, we've got a popular one out there. Rachel Reyes Walsh with right of way enforcement and permitting Stephen for Vili Right of way services. Sarah Anderson with policy planning and Sustainability. Rosalia Vila Lobos Solid Waste Management. Larry Lovato with Street Maintenance. Rachel Bronson and Transportation. And Danny Lopez with wastewater management. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one, that the Council designates the week of May 17 through May 23rd, 2015. As public works weaken Denver and congratulate the 2015 Public Works Employees of the Year and their outstanding contributions to the Department and the city. Section two that the Clerk of the city and county of Denver shall a test and a fix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and that copies hereof before added to Denver Public Works and the ten public works employees listed above. Thank you, Councilwoman Sheppard. Your motion to adopt. I move that we adopt proclamation number 320 series of 2015. The moved and seconded comments from members of Council Councilwoman Shepard. Thank you, Mr. President. It's such a pleasure to be able to read this proclamation again this year. I am Chair of the Infrastructure and Culture Committee and Transportation Planning and all the work. The good work that we do in public works is really a specialty interest of mine, and a lot of people don't know this, but Public Works is the second biggest part of our city budget on an annual basis, just after the Public Safety Department and when it's working well, we don't hear much from the public, but we do hear when they're upset about things. But the great news is, is that every time that your trash is picked up or that your sewer works the way it's supposed to, or that you arrive on time and safely at work or at school or any other parts of your destination during the day. The reason that you got there or the reason that those things were achieved is because of the hard work of our second largest department in the city and county of Denver. I, I just can't speak highly enough for this department, and I think you guys are kind of the unsung heroes. So I'm really glad we're taking this time today to recognize all of the really hard and valuable work that you do to make this city work. And I travel a lot. I travel in the United States a lot, but I also travel, you know, in a fair number of developing countries. And I'm always really struck, by the way, if I. A contrast between the way our infrastructure works so well here in the United States and in Colorado specifically, as compared to some of the other cities and countries around the world that I have visited, which also have nice features as well. But perhaps things working on time correctly, safely and efficiently may not be some of those strengths in other areas of the world. So I'm very thankful for the work that you all do, and I'm especially proud of the growth that we have made in the last few years in terms of really promoting an agenda that helps promote safety for pedestrians and cyclists. In the work that we have made to push the boundaries in this area in Denver in the last few years is really great. And it's also been a big focus of many members of this council, as evidenced by our budget retreats in the last few years. So thank you all so much for all your work. And I'm sure that some of my colleagues might have some comments as well to make, but it's great to see you in chambers tonight. Thank you, Councilwoman Shepherd. Any other comments? Proclamation 320. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to also weigh in and first of all, thank Councilwoman Shepherd for bringing this forward once again. I think it's vitally important to be able to recognize our city employees for the incredible work that is done day in and day out that keeps the city looking clean and great. I know the issue of filling those potholes continues to be a challenge, especially as we continue to have rain. But the work that's done of all of the different public works divisions, if you will, is is such an important part of the basic services that our public, our constituents come to expect. They believe that their taxpayer dollars pay for those services. And if it were not for all of you sitting in the audience today and your colleagues who make this work happen and ensuring that everything works the way it's supposed to, you know, when people's toilets flush, when they turn on the water, you know, our drainage systems throughout the city, through our tributaries, all of that is part of the work that our city employees do for us. And I just want to say a big thank you. Congratulations to the honorees. But congratulations to all of you for the work that you do every day. Thank you, Mr. President. Councilman Ortega. Councilman Devitt. Thank you, Mr. President. I will echo, but not repeat what my colleagues have said very eloquently. I just ask that whoever comes up to speak to the proclamation, I assume it'll be Manager Cornejo that he'll introduce these awardees individually. So we get a chance to thank them directly. Thank you, Councilman Nevitt. Councilwoman Montero. Thank you, Mr. President. I also want to extend my congratulations to all of you for the for the general public. There are so many divisions that are within public works, for example, solid waste. I'm so happy that we have roll out barrels now and Globeville, O'Leary, Swansea and Nell on the Lincoln wants them. So that's something that Councilman Lopez will work on and wastewater and traffic management. And I'm sure that there's other divisions that I'm forgetting. But I just want to say that, as was mentioned earlier, many times, to keep things running smoothly, you don't hear from people and you don't hear them call and say, gee, you really did a good job today. I like the way my street sign looks or something. But the minute that someone hits a pothole or even the timing on the traffic lights, which I've called George Delaney on plenty of times. So it's one of it's so it's one of those divisions where, you know, we just hear from people when things are not when the trains aren't running on time. So I just want to say that I appreciate with all my heart all of the work that manager Carlo and the whole staff do every day, and that I am always thankful when everything is running smoothly and people are happy. So when people are happy, we won't hear from them. And so this is one night where we're able to celebrate and be able to just tell you thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Montero. Councilman Lopez. Thank you. I just wanted to say a quick thank you to all of you who are being honored. But also I think it's just a reflection of the department to reflection and leadership. When you look at basic city services and what our constituency is, city services, you are that face and you know that department accounts for so much of our budget, and rightfully so, especially in in a state where it snows one day, then it rains the hour later and then it's sunny. Right. It wreaks havoc on our infrastructure and it wreak havoc wreaks havoc on our budget as well to wreak havoc in offices. There's always a phone call that comes in from council offices to public works saying, can you fix this pothole that Paul? Can you get people out here? It doesn't just happen in a vacuum. These are hard working people. A lot of them who I know call Council District three home and it's their city. And there's nothing more gratifying than when you go out there and you see folks, for example, with street movements that are out there putting in new asphalt, blistering summer days, it's over 200 degrees with the asphalt, what they see coming out and to see them being able to work on streets that they grew up in really says something and it says something about the quality of work that's being done, the dedication of our employees to our city. So I you know, I wish I wish we can pass out. I don't know. How many employees do we have? A manager called Nine Public Works. We should name all of them one day on a proclamation and not necessarily read it, but list it. I'd be. It'd be interesting, but they all deserve it. Thank you very much. Those of you who are being honored. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilmember. Thank you, Mr. President. I just can't let this resolution go by noting that it honors two people from right away. Services, which is probably the part of public works in my office, calls most frequently whether it has to do with street occupancy permits in construction zones or closed sidewalks or parking. We talk to right away services almost on a daily basis, so I wanted to call it that division. All of you are very deserving. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councilwoman Robb, in the comments. 3 to 0 c none. Madam Secretary, roll call. Shepherd I Susman. Brooks. I thought. I Lehman. Hi. Lopez. Montero. Hi, Nevitt. Ortega. Hi, Rob. Hi, Mr. President. Hi. Madam Secretary, please close the voting announced results. 1111. Eyes proclamation 320 has been adopted. Councilman Sheperd, is there someone you'd like to invite to the podium to receive the proclamation? Absolutely. I would like to invite Director Jose Cornejo and please be sure to introduce all of the the employees tonight as well. Thank you very much. Thank you for a proclamation. But more important for the relationship that the members of the council have developed with public works, I think this is very, very important that we have this type of relationship in order to not only maintain the city, but continuing building the city the way we were doing. Yes, I wish that all 1100 employees could be here today because each one of them really deserve a buy on the back for what they do. But we have our Spotlight employees. We have the ten employees that has been nominated as employee of the year. And I'd like to talk a little bit about each one of them, because I think sometimes we get lost a little bit on when we have 1100 employees not talking about each one of them in what they they do on a day to day basis. So I'd like to start with Rudy Sloth from finance and administration. Rudy always goes above and beyond his duty. He engages in new training and new development opportunities. He was selected to participate in the Emerging Leaders Program and willingly accepted more responsibilities and challenges within the agency Dwayne feels from the free management. Duane is one of fleet's exceptional supervisors who is passionate about his employees. His customers need in agency priorities Sierra and his and assume from policy planning and sustainability. Sierra has exemplified leadership in the area of water quality planning and innovation by moving plans and projects forward even when policy barriers were present. Danny Lopez from Waste Water Operation. Danny has consistently been the highest production earner in his section. His experience in grading the condition of the city's sewer provides, as in every everybody. Everybody's making decisions with the right and exact information for future planning design solutions. Larry Lovato from Street Maintenance. I say my driver, Larry, plays a large role in helping St Monans achieve its annual goals, including paving an additional 75 lane miles each year with mining from the two way initiative. Rosalie Villalobos from Solid Waste Management. Rosalia serves as the backbone of Solid Waste Management. He coordinates and manages traffic control, which at times can be a challenging and difficult task that he handles with efficiency. Michael Lopez from Capital Project Management. Mike has been a key member of the capital project management team, specifically working with the Bridge Group. He has been instrumental in developing a new bridge maintenance program, using inspection findings to tackle necessary maintenance and repair work. Steven For Vili, right from right of way services, Steve is always trying to find ways to make Denver a better city. As a senior engineer, he contributes his wealth of experience in water quality surveying and transportation engineering to improve the quality of capital projects. And last but not least is Rachel. Rachel Brownson from Transportation. Rachel Passion for Transportation Weekly to here from intern to planner, Denver Public Works here. The indications stems from the impact transportation has on people every day life. Rachel strives to improve the quality of life in Denver. She builds thousands of miles each year on her own bike. So thank you very much for everything. One more. Rachel I'm sorry. Rachel. Ray Yes. Well, yes. And there is one more. Rachel Race watch from right away. Enforcement permits. Rachel has provided years of critical administrative support within right of way enforcement and permit applications here. Eight years. With the CD, clear areas of responsibilities have grown to include the electronic parking permits program, acting as a liaison from the parking magistrates to help with quality control for parking citations and supplying the staff with uniform and operational items. Thank you very much. And if you all wouldn't mind standing. Get your people to stand up, man. And there we go. Thank you all. Congratulations. All right, one more proclamation. 359. Councilman Lopez, will you please read proclamation 359.

AN ORDINANCE related to increasing the Business License Tax Certificate Fee and amending Sections 5.30.060 and 5.55.030 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

SeattleCityCouncil_07252016_CB 118715

I think those are nice rhythm there. Those oppose vote no, the ayes have it and the appointment is confirmed. Next agenda item place. The report of the Affordable Housing Neighborhoods and Finance Committee. Agenda Item seven Council Bill 118715. Related to increasing the business license, tax certificate fee and amending sections 5.30.060 and 5.55.03 of the Seattle Municipal Code. The committee recommends the bill pass as amended. Councilmember Burgess. Thank you. This item and the next item are two revenue ordinances related to our city business and occupation tax and the business license fee. And Councilmember, as I put it, each of your positions a table that explains this first ordinance. This first ordinance will adjust how we charge for the business license fee. It shifts to a tiered approach and is phased in in 2017 through 2019. For each of these three years, about 85% of all businesses in Seattle will be held harmless and will pay the same business license fee as they pay today for larger companies. They will pay more as we advance through these three years, and that gives us a better proportional distribution of these fees and the resulting revenue that we can achieve. I want to thank councilmembers Herbold and Johnson for working on this with my office and coming up with this alternative proposal that came out of committee. And I urge its passage today. Any other comments or questions by my colleagues? Councilmember Johnson. Just want to say thank you. Council Member Burgess. We when we walked into this process in my office, wanted to take a closer look at the proposal that the Mayor had laid out. When we first received this proposal. It set forth to fund about two thirds of the proposed increase. We sort of set a policy goal of 80%. So thanks for working with us to get towards that policy goal, which I hope. Knock on wood gives this body a more stable revenue source to stand on when we get into the budget discussions a couple of years down the line. So one of that, thanks for working with us so proactively. Councilmember Herbold. Thank you. Yes. Echoing Councilmember Johnson's thanks to Councilmember Burgess, the chair of the committee was very adept at recognizing that the members of his committee had different policy objectives and did a great job working with both of us to accomplish ours. Mine in particular, was an interest in holding smaller businesses harmless from the increase, as well as creating a new tier for higher performing businesses. And I think that the rate structure before us today does so. Very good. Any other comments? One last comment. Councilmember. Burgess. Thank you. One last comment. After the three year phase in in 17, 18 and 19, this legislation then adopts an automatic inflationary adjustment to these rates going forward based on the CPI. Thank you. Hearing no further comments. Please call the role on the passage of the Bill. O'Brien by Sergeant Burgess i. Gonzalez Johnson Juarez I. Herbold I President Harrell I Adan favor and unopposed. Will pass and show assignment next. Agenda item, please.

AN ORDINANCE authorizing, in 2015, acceptance of funding from non-City sources; authorizing the heads of the Executive Department, City Budget Office, Department of Neighborhoods, Department of Parks and Recreation, Human Services Department, Seattle Fire Department, Seattle Police Department, Department of Information Technology, and Seattle Public Utilities to accept specified grants, private funding donations and subsidized loans and to execute, deliver, and perform corresponding agreements; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_12142015_CB 118582

3234 of the Finance and Culture Committee agenda item 32 Constable 118 582 Authorizing a 2015 acceptance of funding from non city sources authorizing the heads of the Executive Department, City Budget Office, Department of Neighborhoods, Department of Parks, Recreation. Human Services Department, Seattle Fire Department, Taylor Police Department, Department of Information Technology and Seattle Public Utilities to accept specified grants, private funding, donations and subsidized loans, and to execute, deliver and perform corresponding agreements and run off and confirm research and projects the committee recommends as bill passes amended. Thank you, Councilmember Lakota. This is the ordinance that authorizes the 2015 acceptance of funding from non city sources in authorizing the heads of various executive departments to accept specified grants, private funding, donations and subsidized loans, and to execute, deliver and perform corresponding agreements which accompany those funds. Two questions or comments. Please call the roll on the passage of the bill. Gordon Gonzalez Harrell. Lakota O'Brian Rasmussen. So on President Burgess High eight in favor and unopposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read item 33.

Update by the Interim Fire Chief on the Fluid Spill in the Estuary. (Fire)

AlamedaCC_04072015_2015-1510

And at this point, we'll proceed with three. A update by the interim fire chief on the fluid spill in the estuary. Good evening, Madam Mayor. Actually, I'm going to give the update tonight. Sorry for that confusion. This is just going to be a very informal quick update. We we do plan on coming back once we after what I talk about once we receive more documentations, will be coming back and doing a formal report for you. But I just wanted to give you an oral update about where we are. On March 16th, Mayor Spencer, myself and Fire Chief Long went to Yerba Buena Island to visit with the Coast Guard Command staff, and we toured the facility there. They gave us a briefing on their response capabilities. And also they briefed us a little bit on the spill that occurred on February 10th in the Alameda, Oakland estuary. At that time, they they let us know that they had done testing. The testing was they had not received it back yet. Once they do receive the testing back, it will be forwarded on to their headquarters. And then we will be privy to the information of interim chief. Long has submitted a public records request, a freedom of information, they call it, for the federal government Freedom of Information Act. Once we they and they are obliged to respond to that. And once we receive that information, we will be coming back to council with that information. Additionally, Chief Long spoke to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Office of Spill Prevention and Response regarding their investigation. As you probably are aware, both the Coast Guard was doing their own internal investigation and the Department of Fish and Wildlife also did an investigation. And they they have concluded they actually haven't concluded their investigation. But the analysis that they did take in the samples that they took, there was not a match with any of the Coast Guard vessels. And from their perspective, they determined that the samples will be saved as evidence, and the investigation from their perspective remains open until they can actually determine where the source of the spill came from. But they did not. So this was again, this was Department of Fish and Wildlife, Office of Spill Prevention and Response. So separate from the Coast Guard. And they did not have a match and they did sample the Coast Guard cutters. So once again, though, we will be we still waiting on the response from the Coast Guard themselves from their investigation. And once we receive, that will be coming back with a full on report. That concludes. Councilmember questions before we have we have three speakers. Council member questions. All right. I'm going to go ahead and call the public speakers. Our first speaker will be April Squires and then Monty Hain and then Brock the Out. My chum. All around. 4:00 on the afternoon of. October 12th, 2014, I watched a floating expanse of grayish. Brown sludge. Enter San Leandro Bay from the direction of. Alameda. As Otis Street Bridge. The plume moved slowly and curled around the eastern tip of Alameda Island. Then enter the Oakland Alameda estuary. Mr. Huynh and I continued watching following the plume. From. A path on the Oakland side of the estuary. Around 5:30 p.m., we observed the plume from directly above the Fruitvale Bridge. By that time, the plume extended from San Leandro Bay westward past the Park Street Bridge. It was grayish brown and had a thick gel like almost foamy consistency unlike anything I'd seen. The plume was about. 15 feet wide and. Maybe 20 foot. Long segments embedded with some clumps. Of grass with roots attached. And other debris. Including straws, paper cups and pieces of wood. There were occasional breaks in the. Plume where there. Was a thin. Oily sheen. Around 6 p.m., Mr. Huynh borrowed. My cell phone and called 911. I listened as he was first connected with CHP. Then the Alameda Fire Department. I heard him describe the sludge and tell the other party that he would remain in the area. At the Nob Hill parking lot and be available by cell phone as if he were needed. I heard him give his cell phone number. So that he could be contacted. Mr. Huynh told me, Excuse. Me just one moment. I'm very sorry, but I just want to make it very clear. I truly apologize for interrupting, but I do not believe this is on the subject matter of the estuary spill. So it's fine to have you speak on matters, not on the agenda on this matter. And we were prepared for that. But I just wanted to make it clear that this is not a spill. So nobody's saying. I didn't think so, but no, I wasn't sure. How. No, no, I appreciate it. And I don't mean to, but I don't want it to be confusing because this is a different spill. So different this would be hold out. It's more like a public comment. Yeah, she's actually speaking items, not on the agenda. So public comments are not really on the estuary spill, right? That's right. Yeah. Thank you for the clarification. She'll get her full 3 minutes, though. So we start over. Okay. Anyways, should I just. Continue or do I start. Over? Okay. And why did time is the 3 minutes so anyway, so he could be contacted. He, he told me that quote that they said that a truck would be sent. So because it was getting dark and cold, Mr.. Huynh and I had coffee at Pete's at Nob Hill Grocery. Sitting where we could see the Fruitvale. Bridge, expecting to hear a siren after. About an hour when there was no siren or a fire truck. I laughed, and. Mr. Hawing said that he would return to the bridge and try again. Issues that concern me going forward, the insufficient response resulting from 911 calls. I learned that it is likely that response is inadequate. Because there was. No protocol. In place for first responders in pollution cases that are not petroleum. Based and. That the and. Also secondly, that the city of Alameda should establish its own protocol to protect the marine life we all enjoy, as well as public. Safety of residents and visitors who enjoy the beaches. The mayor should. Create a commission and a citizen advisory. Committee. And thirdly, that the proposed Senate bill 718 by California state senators Mark Leno and Lori Hancock delineates. Procedures to report pollution events, identify. Causes, hold accountable polluters, and create and promote citizen reporting and involvement. The mayor should ensure that the city's protocol. Is integrated with the Senate bill. Thank you very. Much. Thank you very much. Monte Hein. Thank you. When I was modifying, I investigated the plume that Ms.. Squires and I observed, and here are some of my facts and conclusions. Alamy the Sphinx lagoons underwent extensive dredging during the first two weeks of October 2014. Dredging. Solids from these lagoons were dumped in a toxic hot spot at Alameda Point, and the residual liquids were released through the Lagoon portal into San Francisco Bay. Two months later, a mystery, a great mystery girl killed and injured hundreds of seabirds along the shores of Alameda, San Leandro and Hayward and the bird rescue nonprofit's budget has been drained. Chemical analysis by Cal Fish and Wildlife has not ruled out lagoon dredging as the source of the mystery goo. Fish and Wildlife took samples from near the Lagoon portal to test and compare with the Mystery Goo. I saw an employee of Clean Lakes Inc taking a lagoon water sample. Per their website, Clean Lakes uses toxic agricultural chemicals to clarify inland waterways. One such product is, quote, absorbed and translocated by aquatic plant foliage interfering with plant metabolism. Another is, quote, a contact herbicide effective against a broad range of aquatic plants. Clean Lakes also uses surfactants, which are chemical compounds that can emulsify, dissolved and dissolve solids and render them float able. Degradation of marine habitat near the lagoon portal is evident in this screen right here I'm showing in the center. You'll notice the lush greenery around the rocks that was taken over a year from the most recent photo, which in which the rocks are bare. Here is a photo showing a foaming agent, a possible sort of act surfactant in the lagoons. That's right here. Hmm. Notice the gray fringe where the white foam meets the water as if a chemical change is taking place in those two cloudy areas with the arrows point. That's what I'm referring to. It's gray right on the fringe of that white foam. Conclusions. The timing, flow, direction and content of the October sludge plume are consistent with Alamitos Lagoon dredging and the mystery. Good additional sampling analysis are required to prove link with linkage between the goo and the lagoons. Further investigation is needed to determine the extent of environmental damage and the risk of relying on toxic chemicals to maintain the aging finger lagoons. We need further study to determine the extent to which a new era of catastrophic environmental risk to the Marines ecosystem of San Leandro Bay has been brought about by changes in tidal currents due to drought related sediment buildup. Thank you. Thank you very much. Rock the lot. Council Mayor. I actually want to address the February 10th fuel spill, which is different from what has just been discussed by the previous two speakers. We're all human and as humans we do make mistakes. Accidents are just that. There are accidents and we can accept that. What's difficult to accept. It's a cover up. And not getting the truth about something that put people from the island at risk. Health risk and risk of their property. The fuel spill that occurred on the 10th of February was quite substantial. It ultimately covered miles of the estuary. At the. March 3rd. City Council meeting, we had representatives from both the Coast Guard and the Cal. Fish and Wildlife Department. Who said that. The source of the spill remained unknown. That what was detected in the spill was Marine diesel. After that, you heard numerous speakers, numerous very knowledgeable speakers say that it was their opinion that what was detected was a kerosene based substance, which would be consistent with JP five, which is a fuel that's used in the modern generation cutters and the aircraft that fly off of them. The only place that that could have come from was the Coast Guard. We're all waiting for our Freedom of Information Act to come through. We have no further information from the Coast. Guard. Because their investigation is still active. It's still underway. So there's no news there. But I did take a sample from our marina that night and passed it on to Fish and Wildlife. And they sat on that for the last two months. And I found out just this afternoon that my request to have that returned to me so that I could do an independent analysis of it. They have instead sent it to a commercial lab for a, quote, independent analysis. So I'm actually looking forward to seeing those results and sharing those with the council. Once again, I would say if that comes back as JP five, the only source of that could be the Coast Guard. Now, we take great civic pride about having the Coast Guard in this city. And I, in fact, have great respect for the Coast Guard or have had respect for them up until this incident. But I think that we as a community deserve the truth on a matter that's this serious. And I'm feeling like the Coast Guard would just as soon have this all just pass as water under. The bridge or water out the estuary. Nobody wants to take any formal responsibility for this. And I think that the people that were. Liveaboard that night were put at risk. And I think that we could be better prepared for an incident like this in the future and that the city and residents of Alameda deserve the truth of the matter. And I don't think we received that today. Thank you. Thank you. Have no further speakers subs for this item. Three B. Update on safety of vacant buildings at Alameda Point or. Oh. Um. I'm going to. I'm just going to exercise my prerogative. Leave it. Thank you.

A bill for an ordinance adding a new Division 3.75 of Article IV, Minimum Wage Protections for Workers Associated with City Contracts. Amends the Denver Revised Municipal Code to add a new Division 3.75 of Article IV requiring minimum wage protections for workers associated with city contracts. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 2-26-19.

DenverCityCouncil_03112019_19-0163

President. Thank you very much. I'm going to do a quick recap on the resolutions and items being called out under bills for introduction. No items have been called out, but under bills for final consideration. Councilman Cashman, you'd like to call 163. Under pending, no items have been called out. And so that is our only item. Madam Secretary, if you could put 160 up on the screen and Councilwoman Gilmore, if you could put 163 on the floor for a final passage. Happy to. Mr. President, I would like to place Council Bill 0163 on the floor for final passage. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. I very much appreciate your letting me shift gears and get this on the agenda. As I mentioned in my announcement and my reading the statement from Councilwoman Kennedy, this bill had had not been scheduled to be called out. But I'm sitting here on this dais looking out at a room filled with working men and women of Denver. I see the familiar T-shirts of Unite Here, the purple sweatshirts of SEIU 105 and who have made the fight for $15 an hour minimum wage, a rallying cry and a mission for a good number of years. And while my colleagues made wonderful comments last week that I don't need to repeat along with a councilman, can each his remarks in view of the hard work that these folks have put forth over the years and in light of the importance of this bill, which will change lives of Denver families, I thought they deserved to hear us place our vote and give them the opportunity to express whatever satisfaction they may have. So with that, that's my comment. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. So last week we sent this through on concert to send a statement. And today, though, we're going to give you an actual vote that's not in the Bloc so that there can be some celebrating, I think. Councilman Espinosa. I'm actually just chimed in so I could filibuster for a little bit, because if we're going to take a vote, this is one that Paul Lopez definitely needs to be on the dais for. Anthony, could you grab Paul and let him know that we're going to take a vote on the minimum wage? So I apologize to both my colleagues and everyone in the pews here, but I thank you all. If you've been paying attention, at least on my time on council, you know how important this issue is to Councilman Lopez. So thank you all for your deference in this matter. Anybody else want to chime in? I will admit, Councilman Espinosa, I expected you to be better at filibuster than that. But, yeah. I'll left back in the chamber as the councilman breaks. Anything you say before we vote. You know, all I have to say, if if that's filibustering from Espinosa, he can filibuster all day long on this dais. But I just I'll seriousness aside, I just want to say to those folks who who work so hard and bring this forward, there's a lot of things on the on the executive side and those of us who are on the legislative side. But but those of you in the pews got this done. And so I want to thank you for all your hard work. And if you're watching this today, this is a proud moment because it's government working for those folks who are pushing hard and calling us out. So I appreciate you guys work. Thank you, Councilman Brooks, Councilwoman Gilmore. Thank you, President Clark. I just want to say a huge thank you again. This is all of your work. It's your community organizing. It's you continuing to push this forward. And just had the opportunity to meet this morning with another group of SEIU folks to share concerns. And I know there's much more that we need to work on together, but tonight is a night for celebration. Congratulations again and looking forward to our work ahead. Thank you, President Clark. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilman Lopez. Yes. I'm so sorry. Oh, thank you for making sure I was a part. You missed one heck of a filibuster. Heck of a filibuster. I wanted to congratulate all of you who worked so hard organizing. Organizing each other, taking risks. I know what it's like. I know how organizing goes. I know how it works. And I know how hard it is to get something. Like, I mean, just to get a union contract as is is hard in and of itself, but to fight and for your workplace and for your colleagues. Right. But to fight for everybody is something that is next level. And you all have achieved next level. And you all have not just proved that the labor movement and that you and workers organize together. They don't just organize to support each other, but you organize and you change an entire city. And I think this is this is something that attest to this. So I just wanted to thank you for your work. I I'm absolutely ecstatically supportive of this as it moves forward. So. All right. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. We have everybody in the room. We've got this called out. Let's vote. Madam Secretary, roll call. Freshman High. Black Eye Brooks. Imam. Espinosa Flynn, i Gilmore I Herndon I Lopez t. Whether I. Knew. The. Assessment. I Mr. President. I Madam Secretary, please call the voting announced results. 1111. I is 163. Hey. All right. Thank you all for being here. And thank you, Councilman Cashman, for calling that out. That does conclude the items to be called out. All bills for introduction are ordered published and we are now ready for the black vote on resolutions, proclamations and bills on final consideration.

AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance 125493, which amended the 2018 Budget (Ordinance 125475), including the 2018-2023 Capital Improvement Program (CIP); changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels, and from various funds in the Budget; adding new projects; revising project allocations for certain projects in the 2018-2023 CIP; creating both exempt and non-exempt positions; modifying positions; making cash transfers between various City funds; amending a Budget Summary Level purpose statement; revising project descriptions; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council.

SeattleCityCouncil_07092018_CB 119272

Agenda in five council 119 272 amending ordinance 125 493 which amended the 2018 budget. Including the 2018 through 2023 capital improvement program. The committee recommends the bill passed as amended. Thank you. Rachel. Thank you. So the first quarter supplemental budget provides expenditure authority to use the grants that we just accepted for other budget revisions that are requested by various city departments. It is the collective of approximately $17 million. The 13.4 that we just accepted and plus an additional almost $4 million. These will be used for various sub fund projects. The largest one is $10 million in our judgment and claims fund to cover the cost of settlements and judges. There will be initial 2.3 million for the Seattle Police Department, 1.8 million for reconstruction of Woodland Park Zoo's night exhibit, and $1.3 million of General Fund for Finance General Reserves to support funding for city obligations to King County for various election and voter registration costs. There is more. If you don't have any questions, I'm just going to recommend that we adopt 119272. Any further comments concerned Johnson? This is the infamous sidewalk amendment that we talked about in council briefing, and we heard some testimony about this afternoon here in full council. So I would move adoption of Amendment seven B second. Then moved in second, Councilmember Johnson's Amendment seven B, are there any further comments on just the amendment piece comes premature to want. I totally support sidewalks, safe sidewalks that are accessible to everyone, especially and including children and our elderly and disabled community members. However, I intend to vote no on this amendment. It would take half a million dollars intended for city wide school pedestrian safety and reserved exclusively for a three block stretch of sidewalk near your village. What the Seattle Department of Transportation should do with this money is use their knowledge and expertize to select the neighborhoods with the least safe pedestrian access to schools and allocated their. If there are no school safety needs immediately, then as DOD should use the money for sidewalks in areas in the city of greatest need. As I mentioned, I think the whole city deserves safe sidewalks, including this neighborhood, and I totally support the neighborhood residents who have come to advocate for it. But when deciding which neighborhood should get the funding first, I think that the city should be deciding that based on a fair determination of greatest needs. Taking equity into account. And above all, I think I just wanted to echo what Gordon Tuttle, four from Seattle neighborhood Greenway said that the city council should be pushing for as he got him bold funding solutions, progressive revenue sources to ensure safe neighborhoods throughout the city. Because again, as you said, there are large swaths of the city that are lacking safe sidewalks and safe neighborhoods. Thank you. Council members want any further comments from Councilman John? So he'd like to speak. If I may. Just two quick points. I think, one, just to make sure that my colleagues are clear here, this is $500,000 in school safety traffic pedestrian improvement fund that didn't exist. This money has come from higher than expected red line traffic camera violations. So it is new money, for lack of a better term. Secondly, the the neighborhood, as you heard a little bit during public comment, has had a whole lot of impacts coming from the University Village. University Village is set to build a big parking garage and that big parking garage resulted in mitigation funds coming to the Department of Transportation a little more than half a million dollars. The neighborhood was hoping that that money would be used for this particular sidewalk. The department has decided to allocate that money towards traffic signal improvements, which likely will result in more people driving through the neighborhood more speedily than they already do today. So this, we think, is a set of investments that will help get folks more safely to the places they need to go to. And I want to thank those who are hoping to support this. Thank you. Any further comments from any of our colleagues before we're voting and we're just voting on the amendment for right now. I'll call it seven. Be okay. All those in favor of Amendment seven be as advanced by Councilmember Johnson. Please vote I. I oppose vote no, no, no. If the motion passes and now we're going to go back to the base legislation because I'm back. Would you like to see two more words about. No, I think I've said what needs to be said about the committee unanimously recommended adoption, and I support Councilmember Johnson's amendment. So as as amended, I would like to put this forward. Okay. For the comments, please call the rule on the passage of the Bill O'Brien. Hi, Suzanne. I beg your. Hi. Gonzalez Herbold Johnson Suarez Mascara President Harrell Hi nine in favorite on a post. Person show sign please read the next agenda item the short title please. I think one six.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; amending Section 21.49.125 of the Seattle Municipal Code; updating the City Light Department’s Open Access Transmission Tariff and rates to meet changes in costs and regulations.

SeattleCityCouncil_10052020_CB 119899

Agenda Item six. Constable 119899 Police Department and then inspection 21.2 49.1 25. At the same time as the code updated, the City Lights Department's open access, transmission, tariff and rates to meet changes in costs and regulations. The committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you so much, Madam Clerk. Councilor Peterson, you're the chair of the committee and are recognized in order to provide the committee report on this item. Thank you. Council President This is another technical measure for utility management. This legislation council bill 119899 amends our 2009 open access transmission tariff which governs how others can transmit their electricity between points on Seattle City Lights Transmission Systems. This updated version is necessary to account for the changing business needs of the utility and address expiring contracts with other transmission users. According to this fiscal note, this legislation will have minimal to no impact on city light. It passed our committee unanimously. Thank you, Councilmember Peterson, for those comments. Are there any additional comments on the bill? Hearing no additional comments on the bill. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill? Must get a. I. Peterson. I. So what? Yes. Strauss. Yes. Herbold. Yes. Lewis. Yes. Morales. Yes. President Gonzalez. Yes. Eight in favor and unopposed. Thank you so much. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation? Item number seven Will the clerk please read item seven into the record? Agenda Item seven Capital 119895 Relations Department granting authority for the Department to offer incentives program and the electrification of transportation for its customers, including the promotion of electric vehicle adoption and advertising programs to promote the utility services, incentives or rebates.

Recommendation to: 1) Adopt resolution to amend the use of 2331 Locust Avenue, Assessor Parcel Number 7208-014-029, from affordable housing to open space; 2) Authorize City Manager to execute the First Amendment to Agreement No. 2643, and any other documents necessary to amend the use of the property at 2331 Locust Avenue, Assessor Parcel Number 7208-014-029, from affordable housing to open space; and 3) Authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary for the purchase of 2331 Locust Avenue, Assessor Parcel Number 7208-014-029, from the Long Beach Community Investment Company in the amount of $30,569.32. (District 6)

LongBeachCC_02032015_15-0091

Thank you. Next item, which I believe is the regular agenda item 12. Item number 12, report from City Manager Development Services, Parks, Rec, and Marine and Public Works. Recommendation to adopt resolution to execute the First Amendment to agreement and to execute the purchase of 2331 Locust Avenue in the amount of $30,569 for the use of affordable housing to open space District six. Thank you. Can I get a motion? Okay. There's been a motion by Vice Mayor Lowenthal and customary ringer almost. Councilmember address. Any public comment on the item? Yes. Yes, councilmember. Yes. Thank you very much, Mayor. You know, I'm really happy to see this item on the agenda tonight, because this is a project that I've been working on, you know, for over four years. You know, and transfer of this property will help to move these children from the side of the streets and alleys to a safer, you know, recreational environment. And I hope that my colleagues will agree with me on this. Mr. Mayor, I could withdraw my motion. I realize this is in Councilmember Andrew's district. Oh, there we go. Is that okay? Yeah, that's. That's okay. That's good. Thank you. I'm good with that. I spoke on it. Even voted on it. Thank you. The public seeing no public comment on this. Seeing none. Please cast your votes. Motion carries seven zero. Great. Thank you. Next item.

Recommendation to Amend the General Fund and Other City Funds for the Fiscal Year 2015-16 Budget by Allocating the $14,500,500 in Excess of 20% Reserve Requirement from the General Fund Reserve. (Finance 2410)

AlamedaCC_10202015_2015-2128

Write recommendation to amend the General Fund and other city funds for the fiscal year 20 1516 budget by allocating 14.5 million in excess of the 20% reserve requirement for from the general fund reserves. Before you continue, did either of you want to go first and express your concerns or how did you want to proceed? Yeah, I don't think I need to hear of the presentation I just had, you know, one. One item to point out. All right. Thank you for being patient on this. I kind of recall when we had the discussion on the 6 million, we were going to talk about purse smoothing and OPEB funding. And one of the options may have been, you know, 2 million for existing retirees, 2 million for per smoothing and 2 million for current employees. I know you're going to come back with, you know, a more media analysis on what to do with that 6 million. But I just wanted to make sure the record was clear that that was one of the things that I suggested during that discussion. Any other comments? Member de Saag. Thank you. You know, I just wanted to make two points. One was I did have a deep and abiding concerns about the money set aside for the emergency water supply and study. I have no doubt that it's needed, but in my mind I just felt like the substantive analysis was never there. At least, you know, I couldn't recall and I still can't recall it being there. So I really had wonders about $800,000 being devoted out of the 14.5. So it's a continuing concern. The second point I want to raise is. And before I raise a second point, let me just make sure to preface my remarks by saying I support my vote that I voted before and I will continue to do so. And as I think it would be bad faith not to do so. But I think it's worth. Expressing. Some. Hesitancy about, you know, the vote that we're going to be taking. And I think it's worth expressing that hesitancy or reluctance because, you know, for example, we mentioned measure O, you know, for Measure O for the library, that was a $10.6 million bond, $9.6 million that we had to take the people to to confirm and ratify. And tonight, you know, we're making a vote of basically 13 to $14 million. I recognize that, you know, as one of five council members, you know, that is that's one of the authorities that we have. And we make that work in conjunction with the with the city manager and executive staff. So it's not done in a vacuum. But I think, you know, when you put it in the context of how much we had to go out for a vote for something like Majuro at $10 million. And now we're making a vote on 13 to $14 million. I mean, that's. It gives me pause. But I'm going to remain consistent with how I voted previously. So, no, but I think it's important to note that as as I had voted previously, I would prefer to continue to not vote for emergency water supplies. So if it's okay, I'd like to move adoption of everything but emergency water supply. I didn't vote for it last time. All right. So there were some we got in response to member de SACS comment. There are multiple items here that were not unanimous. However, they're presented as one item for us to approve. Except of the majority. So there was a majority on each of the items. However, there are multiple items that were not unanimous, but they are being presented as a package here. So if council wants to. Approve it as is so we can see how we have emotions and whatnot and see what you want to do with that. Vice Mayor I would like I understand the comments and I would like to make a motion to, to, of vote for this measure that. Allocates these funds. And I think the different distinction between measure row and this is measurable. We're asking the people to indebt the city to the tune of $10 million. This is money that's already been collected. And this is this is our fiduciary responsibility to manage the budget. And the budget includes this. But these funds that that are in our hands, it's not like we're going out and asking for the city to indebt us for $10 million. So that's the distinction I drew and I, I move that we approve five d as recommended by the staff report. Sarah Second Circuit Member Ashcroft I can do. The comment just to the vice mayor. I mean, what we did with Metro, the 10%, $6 million bond is the voters property owners are voting to tax themselves. But the city was certainly paying the debt service on that money. And for every dollar that comedians put in, we got to back. But nonetheless, as is often the case in a council vote, we don't have unanimity, but of course we vote by a majority rule. So I'm perfectly comfortable seconding this motion. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor Brody. Thank you, Madam Mayor. It sounds like the sense of the council that we go ahead and vote for this as a package. I would kind of. I originally voted for the the water supply. But, you know, you look at the number 800,000 and you look at the other items that are comparable. You know, Alameda point buildings that was in the news. We had a couple of meetings on that estuary park and we've had a number of meetings on estuary park, the Tidal Canal. We've had a number of closed session and open session meetings on that. The EOC also the same thing. And, you know, I think in you know, in hindsight, it would have been nice if we had a little bit more public discussion on that in the 5 minutes we had on it during this budget meeting late at night. But unless there's know a sense that more than two of us want to revisit that, you know, I'm prepared to support this. And I'll add member Ashcroft. Well, no, go ahead. I didn't want to cut you off the sentence. I was going to add that in regards to the emergency water supply, it's 800 of the 875,070 5000 will be coming back. And we'll have a more comprehensive presentation at that time, is my recollection of what we agreed to at that back on. And this came just before September 15th, and I plan to support this. There were items within this list that I voted against. However, this we operate by majority. We are giving direction to staff. And I think that person I would have liked to have seen the September 15th vote included in the presentation or if that can be somehow linked so that it's easy to see that break out. I think that would be helpful. And I think that this includes many items that benefit the public, that the public will see a noticeable change and improvement in our community. So I think I appreciate council support to vote on this on these items. And I would say the first one that member I believe already referenced, Alan, made a point buildings 575,000. I think that that is critical that we move forward on that. We do have valued members of our community that live near that area. And I think it is imperative that we do our utmost. And I think that's what the community will see to support all members of our community. So I think that this list and that's just one of the items, I think there are multiple items here that it's very important that we move forward for the benefit of our community at large. Member J So did you want. Mad at me? I just want to make two points. The first point is that, you know, I will support the motion. I don't think, you know, making this grant a grandstanding vote of voting no, it doesn't serve anyone any good because there are some things without a doubt that the public benefits by. No one disagrees with that. There are no doubt that we've had a series of meetings for a number of items. No, no, no one disagrees with that. But I think it's safe to say that any time you're dealing with magnitude of dollars, that we're talking about $14 million. You know, I think a special consideration is certainly triggered at that amount. For the same reason that, you know, when we are going after $10 million for our measure out support measure, only asking the voters for that, you know that the level of consideration was given. But, you know, let's move forward. I agree. I have my reluctance about the emergency water supply. But, you know, I've made my point and. You can be convinced. One member already. Did you want to comment? I just. You convinced me. Another person. Never. Ashcroft. And just to wrap up, I think Mayor Spencer, it was almost like we were reading from the same notes, because I would have said just what you said. And I think you look at these expenditures and bear in mind, we know this is one time many and we are these are one time expenditures, but they're also things that had been on our list. You know, they're not all sexy, but we are going to do some needed clean up and, you know, abandoned vessels. And as far as the emergency water supply, I think this is what the mayor was also saying. Sure. I'd like a more robust discussion of what that looks like and what all the different ways we can approach that are. But having come off of and I'm not even sure we're done with the fire season in this state and just seeing the horrendous impacts in counties not that far from ours, I think emergency water supply is something that this island community that's, you know, prone to earthquakes does need to look into. So, yes, I want to I want a fuller and more robust discussion, but that can still come even after this vote. Thank you. All right. That being said, I'm going to call the question all those in favor. I motion passes unanimously. Thank you, counsel. Our next item. A six day.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; authorizing the Department to enter and participate in the Western Energy Imbalance Market, including the ability to execute additional agreements necessary or convenient to participating in the Western Energy Imbalance Market.

SeattleCityCouncil_09032019_CB 119571

Agenda Item seven Council Bill 119 571 relating to the satellite department authorizing department to enter and participate in the Western Energy Imbalance Market, including the ability to execute additional agreements necessary or convenient to participating in the Western Energy Imbalance Market. The Committee recommends Bill Pass. Thank you, Casper Mosquito. Thank you, Mr. President. So this is the second of the green energy legislation that's before us related to Seattle City Light, allowing for us to participate in the Western energy imbalance market. Again, I'll reiterate the comment I just made that, you know, in order for us to truly address the climate change and global warming, we need some radical policy changes that will absolutely take on how we have business as normal. This is a component of a much larger conversation that we must be having around how we create greener energy options. This is not the end all, be all again policy solution to creating green energy. But I think it's an important step that many of you have been working on for a long time to make sure that we could get into the Western energy imbalance market. This creates this helps us, I should say, create more options for greener energy in the market as we look at many of the western many of the Western states, which create higher, I should say, more equitable access to green energy, meeting our environmental standards, our carbon reduction goals, and creates final financial benefits for our region as well. We are very excited that Seattle City Light is going to be leading as the first public entity to join the Western Energy Imbalance Market. The market increases the reliability of renewable power and provides access to renewable power during peak demand periods. And with the amendments that we have included in the legislation in front of you, we have been able to work with a number of folks to get support from the environmental advocacy community and organizations that have been strongly supportive of the participation in the IM as the first public power utility in the Northwest to join. I want to thank Renewables Northwest, which is an early and strong supporter of the I am participation by all Northwest utilities. I want to support I want to thank NRDC, who has supported the expansion of Western energy markets to facilitate the transition of the energy sector to a less carbon intensive portfolio and to Northwest Energy Coalition, of which Seattle City has also been a member for many years. Very support. They are very supportive of our efforts to try to enter into this market as well. This is an innovative regional partnership that supports our climate goals and will increase revenues for our utility and together with the solar bill that was just voted on. These policies represent, I think, a critical component in us adapting greener energy, more efficient energy systems, and help move us away from fossil fuels and towards renewable sources. As we work to address climate change with that, thanks again to Seattle City Light for working with us and to Aaron House, who's been working on this piece of legislation over the last few months as well. Thank you. Customer. Any other questions or comments on the bill? Councilmember O'Brien. Thank you. Councilman ROSQUETA, thanks for your ongoing work on this. I'm excited to be at this point in supporting this. I want to just comment that there is some risk to this. The and I think that it's absolutely the right thing for us to be doing right now. We've heard from a lot of community members, including some of the folks that work from an environmental perspective on the energy market and believe that being part of this energy market will give us opportunities to sell our 100% clean electricity to other markets beyond just Seattle and to also take advantage of the the potential market advantages we have in that in the western in the Western energy market. But with that also comes some risk. And I think it's going to require ongoing diligence from the city council in the years to come to both ensure that the market is performing as as we hope. Again, there will be days where we're winners in days and we're losers as as a market. But we want to ensure that overall it is working to our benefit and to ensure that the folks at City Light are participating in that market in appropriate ways. I don't say that to to denigrate anyone in City Light, just that this is a complex structure and it's going to require that they have the resources and the expertize to be participating in that market in a way that is beneficial. Special to the the ratepayers of Seattle City Light the and also hopefully to the broader environmental goals of the city of Seattle. I think that the council has expressed concerns in the past citywide has been very responsive to that in designing a system. And, you know, there's some questions about how it will play out. I, I have the faith that people are doing their best, and I feel optimistic that it'll work out. And I think we'll have to just continue to provide oversight going forward, too. Brian, any other comments or questions before we vote on the bill? If not, please call the role on the passage of the bill. Thanks John I Gonzalez purple whereas mosqueda O'Brien I Pacheco want president hero. I. Eight and favorite unopposed. A. Of Senate. Please read the reports of the Finance and Neighborhoods Committee.

AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Parks and Recreation; authorizing the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation to enter into an agreement with the Woodland Park Zoological Society for operation and management of the Woodland Park Zoo.

SeattleCityCouncil_12132021_CB 120164

Report of the Public Assets and Native Communities Committee? Agenda Item 23 Council Bill 120164 An ordinance relating to Seattle Parks and Recreation authorizing the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation to enter into an agreement with the Woodland Park Zoological Society for Operation and Management of the Woodland Park Zoo. The committee recommends a bill passed as amended. Thank you so much. Customer worries. This is your ordinance. I want to hand it over to you to provide the committee for report. If you're council president, as the clerk says, this is legislation relating to the Woodland Park Zoo contract. So this is legislation that would renew the operations and management agreement between the city of Seattle and the Woodland Park Zoo. I will highlight I won't go through all the highlights. I shared some of that this morning. So this is the current 20 year contract, which the current 20 year contract remains active until February 22 of this year. Both parties and the zoo and the city have negotiated agreement to renew and update policies related to the public benefits , zoo operations, services and care of the animals. As I shared this morning, I want to thank my colleagues on the committee, and those of you who came, who were not part of the committee are Councilmember Strauss and submitted the 15 amendments by November 30th. And we got them all done and I think it's a better deal. And so with that, the committee recommends or I recommend that the Seattle City Council Pass Council Bill 12064 as amended. Council President thank you so much for your words of support. Are there any additional comments on Council Bill 120164 Agenda Item 23 as we're asking, please. Thank you very much. I also want to thank Councilmember Juarez as chair of the committee for the work that you've done on the various amendments. I think those 15 on just one piece of legislation and especially extend a thank you to unite here locally local eight for bringing the opportunity to include labor peace provision into this agreement and to our attention. And thank you Councilmember Juarez and to members of the zoo for working with us and for the committee's vote to include the Labor Harmony Amendment and to this agreement in front of us. Excited about that and thank you. For your work. Much conspiracy to consume a verbal. You so much want to also appreciate the leadership of my colleagues who represent the neighbors to the zoo. Councilmember Strauss and Councilmember Peterson and of course Council member Suarez for steering the committee through this really important complex oversight work on the agreement. Really many thanks to the passionate advocates who care so deeply about the zoo and the animals in its care. This was difficult because so many people care about the zoo and because the state of research and standards of care and community sentiment all can change so rapidly. In a 28 year agreement committing significant city resources, it was appropriate. I feel that we took the time to carefully consider what was proposed here from stakeholders and debate changes. I'm particularly glad and thankful that we supported requiring council oversight and approval of the long range plan, which will identify the capital and animal habitat changes that this zoo will pursue for years to come. By requiring approval of the long range plan we are building in a touchpoint where the public will have an opportunity to raise concerns and the Council will have an opportunity to exercise reasonable oversight of significant planned changes to the zoo that may impact its operations, animals or financial health. Over the course of the agreement, I know this was a challenging process, but with coordination required between council and central staff and enforced by Councilmember Juarez, I think the the outcome was was was a very good outcome. And I hope the public agrees and I hope that the zoo agrees. I really appreciate their collaboration on the effort. And I also want to just give a shout out to Brian Goodnight on council central staff who helped us sort through and make sense of a long but important document as well as the staffing of Christina because he was in my office as well. Thank you. Thank you so much, Councilmember. For. Any additional comments. Councilman Juarez, any closing remarks. Now, my husband was trying to vote, but other than. That, no. Well, Don, you'd have to run against it if we wanted to. Yeah, I did. He's still in West Seattle, right? Yeah. All right, well, hearing no additional comments will occur. He's got the role on the passage of Council Bill 120164. Agenda item 23. Lewis. Yes. Morales. Yes. Mosquera. I. Peterson. I. Strauss. Yes. Herbold. Let's thank you, Councilmember Suarez by Council President Gonzalez. I aid in favor not oppose. The bill passes and the chair will sign. It will affect my signature legislation on my behalf. Please read item 24 into the record.

A MOTION approving the Fourth Quarter 2015 Expenditures for Emergent Needs and Unanticipated Project Costs Summary Report prepared by the road services division in the department of transportation as required in the 2015/2016 Biennial Budget Ordinance, Ordinance 17941, Section 53, Proviso P2.

KingCountyCC_03302016_2016-0117

Excused. Excellent. Thank you very much. And that takes us up now to item number six. And this is proposed motion 2016 0117, a motion approving the fourth quarter of the 2015 expenditures for emergent needs and anticipated projected costs. Summary Report Prepared by the Road Service Division and the Department of Transportation. As is required, there will be an amendment. This is the fourth quarter report and the report says it's the third quarter report. So there will be a technical amendment. So with that, this. Okay, would you begin? Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm Lisa Kay for the central staff. For the record, my staff report begins on page 53 of your packet. As you mentioned, proposed motion 2016 0117 would approve the fourth quarterly report from the Road Services Division on emergent needs and unanticipated project costs. Council approved a budget proviso requiring these reports in response to an operational shift in roads from planned investments. That is to say, programing projects through the CHP, individual projects to reactive system management, which pooled funding in a number of response oriented programs, including emergent needs and quick response. This budgeting change was a response to the roads funding shortfall, the experience with emergency roadwork expenses, and a desire not to cancel capital projects if emergency repairs required additional revenue. This fourth quarterly report shows the transfer of $98,000 from the Quick Response Project for a slide repair project in Preston, and about $1.2 million in transfers from emergent needs to supplement three unanticipated grants for risk reduction from the flood control district as the fourth quarter report. This report also then shows the cumulative expenditures in these programs for the first year of the 20 1516 biennium. You'll see on table five of the staff report, which is on page 57 of your packet, that both programs have large balances. Halfway through the biennium there's approximately $11.11 million remaining in quick response and approximately five and a half million dollars in emerging needs. As you mentioned, Amendment one to this motion, which is on page 67 of your packet, would correct a typographical error. That concludes my report. Road Services Director Bauer is in the audience. Okay. So both of these accounts have money left in them. But then I look on page 55 on the projects deleted is this was done as first and then 2000 1314 VIP. So is this just to give us some background that these projects have been deleted in the past? What's the purpose of that chart here? Now, this this chart carries forward from the very first quarterly report, which basically shows the projects that were stricken from the CFP and in favor of shifting to this operational response in these pooled funds. So now that we have some money that we didn't expect to be in there, can some of these things go back on on the agenda? I would like to defer that to Director Bauer, please. Okay. And there's one on here, the Miller Bridge replacement, which the federal government. This was destroyed in a flood. And the federal government has chosen not to replace this bridge. Which absolutely breaks my heart. And the 2.5 million is not the total cost to replace that bridge. But in my mind, FEMA should still be taking care of that. But we also see some other bridges that are in dire need. So there you are. Brenda, would you please go ahead and Mr. Bauer and talk to us about why there's money left? And can we go back and reimburse some of these accounts to do some of this work that needs to be done? Brenda Bauer Road Services Director The challenge that we're facing is, is that we have unpredictable levels of failure and also want to take advantage of some opportunities like the grant opportunities we had, which allow us our money to go farther. A couple of years ago, we had at least $7 million worth of failure, destroying the winter season. So we can have a very high dollar's worth of failures. And we are increasingly seeing a greater level of failure in our system because we're not able to preserve and maintain it at an appropriate level. So what we will be doing is in the development of our budget process, taking a look at whether there are carryover funds that we didn't need to use in this last biennium that would be reprogram for a different purpose. And what that purpose would be, it might not be these specific projects. Okay. Although the some of the projects on this list are very serious. That's true. We have a lot of we have a transportation needs report update that's coming out through the comprehensive planning process that lists very significant needs. And I think, you know, the average citizen may not realize how severe this is. Could you again and you did an excellent job a couple of weeks ago saying how many roads we should be overlaying for maintenance and then how many road maps we're planning to do this year? We're planning very few road miles, really a lot of carryover work. From the prior. From the prior year that the contractor wasn't able to get to and a few others that we had some matching funds for. We should be overlaying. So there's an ideal amount and then there's amount associated with the fact that we have a failing road system. Most of most of our Tier one and Tier two roads could use reconstruction and not just overlay. So we our problems are more extensive than a standard road system. So I think that's really important for citizens to know. And I think if I remember correctly from the chart that if you maintain a square foot schedule of $2.97, a square foot reconstruction is 159. That was by a 19 for 2014 chart. Right. And there are a variety of estimates for different types of roadways for how much additional money you're spending. But the reality is, is if you if you don't maintain your asset, then you're replacing it sooner and that results in the higher cost. And part of maintaining our asset is that seal that we put on the top of the road, which is the road. Surface. And we are not able to have an adequate program to even resurface roads. However, a lot of our roads are aging and need to be rebuilt, which is a major capital investment for the county. Okay. And early news is always informative. Thank you. All right. Are there any so. Yes. Councilmember Member Gosar. Thank you, Madam Chair. But are we do we have any specific strategies from the executive that are being utilized to identify the possibility of future funding to increase our commitment to our more critical road needs? Well, we as I reported recently, we completed a Bridges and Roads Taskforce effort, which identified kind of a strategy for what kind of revenue would be equitable and appropriate to address the roads issue. And now the effort is to sit down with city partners and work with them to identify quite specifically what sort of revenue tool would be appropriate. The challenge is, is that we have a declining number of people living in the unincorporated area, and it's just really not enough people left in the unincorporated area to adequately fund a network that serves the entire region. So we need the cooperation of our city partners and their resources in order to address this. Problem and that effort. Is that underway? Right. That effort is underway. All right. Thank you. And away, but going at a glacier speed, according to my clock. But it's underway. So I'm I'm happy it's at least underway. It's a $40 billion asset that citizens should be very concerned is being destroyed day by day because we don't have because of the state formula that is broken and we don't have the capacity to take care of properly. So it doesn't look like a lot happened to help us in this last legislative session. So. Okay. Yes. Councilmember Dombroski. Thank you very much. Just think I'm going to keep bringing this up because I'm kind of curious about and I talked to Ms.. Bauer in the last presentation on roads that we had. But this notion of our franchise fees and really their modesty for folks are using our rights of way. Mm hmm. What? How can we if there was consensus on the council of an interest in exploring that issue, is there interest in the road services division and looking at whether our franchise fees are set at the right amount and what mechanisms we might have to adjust that? I mean, what's the process there? Would it be on a budget proviso? Would you like a motion? Can we just do it with you? So franchises have been negotiated not directly with. By the road. Services division. This is something. That is undertaken by the. Executive and facilities management. So we're not involved in the process. Of. Negotiating those agreements. I know that the executive has been taking, you know, paying close attention to our franchise agreements. And they they're probably it it's probably good to have a conversation with them about the approach that they're taking on that. That's helpful. So it's not your department. It is not our department. Who does the franchise agreements, although we might benefit from them. Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. It is a very good question and I'm glad you keep asking it. And so it's a good thing to keep in front of us because we're going to I was going to say we were going to get desperate. We were desperate four years ago. So we're desperate. We get that. We're we're going to have to start looking for things like that. Okay. So with that, I could use a motion to put this before us. Councilmember Taberski. Okay, Madam Chair. Happy to oblige with a motion to approve proposed motion 2016 01171 to do. Recommendation. Yeah. Thank you very much. When you put amendment number one on page 60, 74. I offer Amendment one. Great. And this is the one we talked about. This is a type of graphical error and moving it from the third quarter to the fourth quarter. All those in favor of amendment number one, they say I those oppose any number one is passed. So that takes us to the underlying as amended. There are no questions. Please clear call for the vote. Thank you, Madam Chair. Council Member Banducci Council Member Dombrowski Council Member Done. All right. Council Member Gossett. High. Council Member Cole Wells Hi. Council Member McDermott. Finance. Council member of the group that's a member of on right there. Madam Chair. Madam Chair, the vote is seven is no nos and council members of the broken bone. Right our excused. Thank you very much. And thank you, Ms.. Boro, for being with us today. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Is that do pass or consent. Honey? Was that do pass or do you pass consent? I miss that, yes. And let's do it for both number five and number six. I think both number five and six could be put on their consent agenda. They're pretty straightforward and let's expedite both of them. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. All right. That takes us up to number seven. And number seven is going to hold its place for a future meeting either at this body or at the full council due to some amendments.

Approves a text amendment to the Denver Zoning Code creating a new zone district, Campus-National Western Center CMP-NWC, comprised of building forms and allowed uses consistent with the vision identified in the National Western Center Master Plan in Council District 9 (2015I-00066). (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Approves a text amendment to the Denver Zoning Code creating a new zone district, Campus-National Western Center CMP-NWC, comprised of building forms and allowed uses consistent with the vision identified in the National Western Center Master Plan in Council District 9 (2015I-00066). IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM. REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 5-13-15.

DenverCityCouncil_07062015_15-0324

Hi. Madam Secretary, please possibly announce the results tonight. Tonight's 323 has been placed on final consideration and does pass. All right. We are on to the next one, which is Council Bill 324. Councilman Neville, will you please put three total on the floor? Yes, sir. Mr. President, I move that council bill 324, as amended, be placed on Final Considered series of 2015, be placed on final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 324, as amended, is now open. May we have staff report? All right. Thank you, Mr. President. Steve Daly with committee planning development. We are now shifting gears of the north, part of north part of the city. Kelly, we just got here. He's going to say a few words here and a bit. So we are we are entering into the North Denver Cornerstone Collaborative area of the city. And this first bill is uh, um, National Western Center zoning simply text amendments. This is writing the new texts to the new zone district for the Denver zoning code. So the community partners associated with, with this effort, the National Western Center partners include CSU, the National Western Stock Show, the City of Denver, History, Colorado, and the Denver Museum of Nature and Science. In addition to community partners, including the dedicated members of the National Western Center Citizens Advisory Committee, this text amendment was initiated by Brad Buchannan , Executive Director of Community Planning and Development, and Kelly, lead executive director of North Denver Cornerstone Collaborative. Quite a bit of public process for writing. The text amendment started with the adoption of the Globeville Neighborhood Plan on December 1st, which recommends the build out of the National Western Center. And a lot of the recommendations from the Globeville Neighborhood Plan rely on the implementation of the National Western Center itself. So from January to March of 2015, there were preliminary discussions about zoning and the best approach to implementing the master plan. And on February 23rd of this year, the Elyria Swansea Neighborhoods Plan was adopted by City Council, another planning document that recommends the build out of the National Western Center on March 9th. The National Western Center Master Plan was adopted by you all. And so there has been a lot of planning, a lot of thinking into the future of the National Western Center. And reading the zoning is one of many steps to implement all of the planning that is taking place from March sorry, on February 28th of 2015. Over there, CPD presented a summary of the text amendment to agency zoning and planning. On March 5th through April 16th, we had an intense set of meetings and intensive, if you will, a number of meetings in a short amount of time. Actually seven. We met seven times with the CAC or the National Western Center Citizens Advisory Committee to discuss all aspects of both the text and the MAP Amendment. On March 30th, the draft was posted to the CPD website. The draft of the proposed text in the map was also emailed to all Arnaud's on the 14th of April, Public Notification for Planning Board was emailed to Arnaud's and all city council members and signs were posted for the related map amendments. On the 29th of April, we attended Planning Board. There was a unanimous vote for approval with one condition. Then I'll discuss the following slide. On the 13th of May, went to Neighborhoods and Planning Committee. 1st of June was first Reading City Council. On June 8th, City Council postponed a public hearing and proposed on the proposed amendment to July six, which is tonight. And on the 11th of June, public notification for City Council Public Hearing was emailed to all Arnaud's and all the City Council members and signs were updated that we're located throughout the neighborhood. We're here tonight for the public hearing. So on the April 29th Planning Board, it was a unanimous vote of recommending approval 1010 oh with the following condition. But the City Council acknowledges and addresses the concerns expressed by the neighborhood stakeholders with regards to neighborhood involvement and governance and community equity. So the national in our entitlement process, you know, there's a lot there are a lot of things that need to take place to implement the plans that we've written. It started with the plan, the vision. We start to drill down in precision and we're writing the crossing, the text and the map amendment. Next steps along this regulatory path will be writing a Public Realm study that discusses the parks and plazas and open spaces throughout the proposed campus for a National Western Center complex also design standards and guidelines that will scope the buildings and speak to what the building should look like and how they should be designed will then move into more precision, which would be site planning and where we get the engineers involved and we make sure that we're we're meeting our life and safety and really designing these buildings inside and out and then we're building. So we've got quite a bit to do between now and then. And this is just this is just a small taste of all the things that are going on and how we can address that. So the proposed tax amendment, the components of his own desires. We're writing a brand new zone district for the Denver zoning code. So we have to determine the context, the zone district standards, which include the building form standards, the uses and minimum parking, and then the general design standards related to landscaping and signage. So starting with the context. So in Division 9.2, you will find the campus context and this is the cover page of the campus context that the context or the campus zone districts that exist in the code today would be SAE, MPH, which is the health care campus of Denver. Health is mapped to page. You have CPI, which is the campus education institution. So the Arara campus has the CPI. And then there's the campus entertainment P.A. Gardens, and currently the Coliseum is maps to you. But none of these existing zoned districts will achieve all of the program, all the uses and the vision identified for the National Restaurant Centers. We're writing a new zone district, and the campus is a really nice fit as far as the context where you have a large contiguous piece of land, where you have similar wayfinding and a number of uses allowed, and building heights that are where you can get to your highest height in the middle of the site and transition at the edges. So campus is the context in where the zone district will have the building form standards similar to those found in other campus zone districts. The max height is 150 feet, with a transition down to the surrounding neighborhoods of transitioning that height down to Brayton Boulevard. There are protected district transitions should they be needed, which are built into all of our zoning districts. There's a small setback required which introduces the need for some landscaping. If there is a zero foot setback, that there wouldn't be the requirement for landscaping around the structures. And then this specific building design will be controlled by design standards and guidelines, and that is not part of the zoning. So we are just kind of creating the box to work with in. The exciting part of the allowed uses include agricultural activities, cultural research and educational uses. Entertainment, civic, public and institutional uses, recreation, residential, commercial, and uses associated with meeting the energy goals of net zero waste energy and water. So the general design standards related to landscaping is required as part of the Basin District. Additional landscaping standards will be created in subsequent public realm and design centers and guidelines. The zoning is mostly written for the actual structures and the uses, and those plazas and open spaces that are envisioned will be controlled by those public realm and design centers of guidelines. Signage. The sign centers are consistent with other campus zoned districts, specifically S.P.A.. The National Assessment Center Master Plan does contemplate a revenue stream from signage and being innovative with designs, and so there will likely need to be some amendment to the zone district or some other standards written for signage. As this builds out and we locate the buildings and we know exactly where the signs should go and the type of flashing or flashing. And then screening is also found in general design standards. There's a high level of screening required, and it's similar to what was found in other mixed use zone districts. So criteria criteria for review for a text amendment consistency was adopted plans and furthers the public health safety in general welfare and results in regulations that are uniform within each zone district. There are five plans that apply to the site, starting with comp plan 2000. The proposed text amendment is consistent with many objectives and strategies found in competent 2000, as detailed in the staff report, but also highlighted below. It's promoting in-fill development, designing mixed use communities, reducing sprawl so that residents can live, work and play within their own neighborhoods, and creating more density at transit nodes, enhancing existing focal points in neighborhoods , and encouraging the development of such focal points to the text amendment in the standards on the text movement are consistent with these goals. From Comp Plan shifting to Blueprint Denver The proposed text amendment is consistent with many objectives and strategies, and I went to greater detail on my staff report. The land use concept is entertainment culture exhibition and is an area of change. We would like to funnel and channel the growth envisioned by the master plan, the global neighborhood plan. The proposed amendment is consistent with many objectives and strategies found within that plan, as detailed in the staff report. A number of strategies rely on the build out of the national western, such as embracing the South Platte River and providing better access to community resources, which is a number of community resource uses would be allowed by the base or by the text amendment improving educational opportunities. So the CFP in NWC allows education for all ages, and then also in introducing new multimodal connections over the river to the National Western Center. So is critical and a critical implementation element for the Globeville Neighborhood Plan and the proposed phasing in the build out of National Western Center would start to implement those plans and the Text and Map Amendment is one of many fronts for implementing the National Western Center. Shifting to early response to the neighborhood plan, the proposed text amendment is consistent with many objectives and strategies found in earlier in Swansea Neighborhood Plan, as detailed in the staff report but also highlighted here, the allowed building heights should accommodate redevelopment of the National Western Center, the text amendment and proposed copy NWC allows of 250 feet, which would accommodate the large structures necessary for this future campus and complex. The plan also recommends encouraging development of key sites, including the National Western Center. The Text Amendment and mapping the zoning will allow for the build out of the National Western Center and then targeting TOD opportunities adjacent to the station. The list of uses allowed by the zone district are similar to those found in zone districts that are mapped near transit stations. And then the National Western Center Master Plan Prose Text Amendment is consist of many objectives and strategies found in that plan as it recommends providing a variety of programs. This is a long list of uses allowed by the Zone District to foster regeneration, and these are the goals related to energy waste water. And the Zone District allows many of those uses and to drive new tourism and the building forms allow for larger structures or large events could be held where we can drive that new tourism that's envisioned by the plan. The Texas move furthers the public health, safety and general welfare of Denver residents as they provide for implementation and revitalization of the National Western Center as identified in the city's adopted plans. And this tax amendment will result in uniform regulations applicable to all new buildings within land mapped copy in WC. So with that, CPD recommends approval based on finding that criteria have been met. Related to the text amendment. So I'd like to turn it over to Kelly, if you don't mind, just to just to kick us off. Sure. Thanks, Steve. Kelly, LEED, executive director of the North Denver Cornerstone Collaborative in the National Western, is one of our six portfolio projects that are going to help reconnect and reenergize these neighborhoods. And I just had a couple of quick comments and I'll be very brief. One is Steve mentioned this really is this is a milestone for this project. Think about where we were four years ago when you were talking about the national western leaving our city. We've come a long ways from that time and all of you have been really important partners in the conversations to get to where we are today . You have all we've sat and how many community meetings and one on one meetings and group meetings talking about how we transform the site, make sure the stock shows here for the next ten years. And most importantly, think about how these neighborhoods, Globeville to the west, Larry Swans here to the east. Yeah. Are transformed and brought along and really benefit from this project. So this is the next step. You know, this takes the master plan and the zoning puts in motion our ability to fulfill the vision, you know, especially with our partners, the issue and do some of the amazing things that CSU is going to be able to do on this campus. So that's one, too, is this this is important because it really solidifies the importance of our collaboration with our neighborhood partners. And we have many members from our community advisory committee here tonight that you're going to hear from, and they have been instrumental in helping us also get here tonight with the zoning and countless hours spent by by folks that have day jobs and have other things to do. Betty cram selling Avon and being a partner and Dru having a full time job as an architect and John's RPN and many, many folks are here tonight to speak on behalf of this. But, you know, this project's success is driven by the success of the adjoining neighborhoods as well. So the zoning that you're going to vote on tonight is as much about the neighborhoods and making sure they benefit as well from what we're about to do as we move into more specific. So that's all I wanted to say and I just thank you all for your commitment to this effort, to these neighborhoods and to the journey we're on to make the National Western Center one of the foremost kind of places where we're going to solve some of the biggest rural, biggest food issues on the planet. Thanks. Thank you both. All right. We have two people signed up, first person and Elizabeth and the second person, David Slutsky. Thank you, members of the Council for this opportunity to speak. I wanted to reinforce this is a good segway from what Kelly was saying, the wonderful process of creating a text amendment through this collaboration with members of the neighborhood, and that this is something that will strengthen by example the type of conversations that are so critical to all of Denver, and that this is part of where, as we're hearing people talk more and more, we find the heart and soul of what's going on in the city is first there is the word in a sense. And in this room there are at least five people from the neighborhood, including Elyria, Swanton, Globeville, that participated as in the breakout sessions with the National Western Center Advisory Committee. There are a couple developers that worked in the process one from Globeville, one from Elyria. There's an executive from the National Western Stock Show. There's the city council members that have been loyal to the process. And for all the differences that I have with Councilwoman Monteiro, which are respectful, I really want it to be publicly acknowledged that this National Western Center Citizens Advisory Committee is a mechanism that she championed and created as an effort to bridge the different stakeholders so that we would have these conversations and to build on an understanding of zoning in conversation in the neighborhoods. Is, is, is a great legacy. So I appreciate that. Councilwoman Ortega was very helpful in bringing staff to the breakout sessions and with city council staff posing questions in the course of the discussions, it's helpful. So as we go forward with our new city council too, I hope that they will see that as part of their legacy is the broad conversations, because we have many conversations to have within the national western centered campus in development. But I just wanted to say a very positive put a very positive spotlight on the process that brought us to this in parallel to what the actual arrival of the text amendment, the text, the new the new zoning change that that we have. It is an extraordinary step. And I think it bodes well for working on the vision of the city to see the neighborhood plans, which are the are the foundation of this coming together with the National Western Center plan. And I hope that the conversation can continue building by building, block by block, site by site, in a very creative and friendly conversation as we implement this zoning and make it truly visionary in the process. So of great shout out to where to the whole effort that got us here and looking forward to continuing that is a participatory urban planning element. So 100% for it. Thank you, Mr. Lasky. And you have 6 minutes or. Thank you, city council, for all the work you've done. Judy, thank you for the years of work and dedication you've you've given us. You know this. My name is David Lansky. I live a 4930 Logan in Globeville. This ain't about global overnight. You know, this is about the national western that started here back in the early 1900s. And as today, I got to look at this like, oh, you know what they've given us? You know, back when they started, there was nothing in Denver and there was nothing in Globeville. We had a couple of smelters. But as time went on, by the late forties, all through the seventies, you know, the national western got so big with the stockyards and everything, they started up, they opened up a lot of slaughterhouses. We became the beef capital of the United States, and it originated out of the national western. There was a lot of byproducts off off of that. Also, number one was fertilizer, you know, I mean, we were shipped it all over the country. You know, every steak that was eaten in New York, Chicago back then, it came out of Colorado. And another thing that came out of the natural western and out of all these industries was hides. You know, they processed hides, but they had a trade back after World War Two. They couldn't process in the United States anymore. So they had a ship em out of the country and that shipped the finished product back here and it would make whatever. So for a lot of years, you know, they came out of Denver, out of Globeville, that originated out of the national western and created a lot of jobs , you know, a lot of work. And. You know, and I remember. As a little boy sitting up. We couldn't wait to get over the stockyards in the summertime. And you sit and listen to the auctioneer and they would auction off the cattle and the sheep and the hawks. And where we connected, we didn't feel like we were a neighbor to the national west and we felt like we were a partner because all of that product, all them animals, came over what was called a cattle bridge down into Globeville, and they separated off into different packing houses. And, you know, that was really interesting in in the in the national western the sixties to me, that was before the convention center. And we got to see every venue that came through car shows, you name it. It was it was in Globeville. We had the Denver Spurs, a hockey team, and at the same time, we had ice skating at the at the National Western. We us kids had a hockey teams, you know. So I mean, it was it was the National Western has given us so much. I mean, and it can go on and on and on. And, you know, we need this zoning and then we come to the zoning. In as hard as Kelly and Steve and Paul and everybody's worked and they're putting it in place, but they put in place no marijuana. And that's great because when we start looking at the zoning and something got brought to my attention last week, you know, this marijuana industry. They're supposed to let all the dispensaries. I think the grow houses, too, are supposed to let all the neighborhood organizations know. And they've never, ever contacted our organization. Now. I owned I owned a bar at one time and I had to jump through a lot of hoops to get my license. And we need to start enforcing that here. There's no enforcement in Globeville, and we need that if we want to shine with the national Western, if we want to prosper, if this National Western Events Center is going to prosper, we have to do a lot of enforcement and accountability, and we have to clean up our neighborhood. And we need to see what the city needs for us to do. And they need to help us enforce rules and regulations. Because you don't. I don't I can't understand how $1,000,000,000 event center could be right next to, you know, a ghetto where they still pollute the river. And, you know, your children and your grandchildren, your nephews and nieces will come to this event center and walk off a block away and wind up in a dangerous neighborhood. You know, there's just no future in it, you know? And, you know, we need we need we need to work together. And we are working with the National Western. And I've asked them a couple of times what would they like us to do? And our response. But, you know, we're asking the city, what do you want us to do in Globeville? How can we better serve the national Western? How can we make this the best it can be? Because this this national western, this event center is going to. Benefit all of us for years to come, and we want to be part of it. You know what? The other thing we need to do? We need to limit the size of these grow houses. You know, if we don't stop it, we're not going to be able to bring in new development. You know, and and I can't understand why there wasn't regulation like the liquor industry. You know. And nobody partitioned our neighborhood ever. Anyway, that's all I got. And I want to thank you, folks. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Lansky. All right. That concludes our speakers. Do we have any questions on 324 as amended? Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I just have a couple of questions. And let me ask Steve Nelly first, if you would come forward, Kelly, you might want to sit in the front as well. Steve, you walk through some of the additional documents or press procedures that still need to take place. You talked about the public realm, study design standards and guidelines, site planning, and then construction would be kind of the final. So I know when you and I met last week, you talked about a development agreement. Where does that fall into the process? Or the big picture of all of this that we're dealing with? Yeah, I think the conversation that we were having was about, you know, things that aren't necessarily in the zone or are necessarily appropriate for the zoning and what other tools may be available. There are a lot of tools available, one of which could be a development agreement with between the city and between the future governing structure. That was my you know, it was one suggestion of a tool that could be used for things that aren't necessarily in the zoning. Okay. One of the questions I have about the height issue and we talked about this when we met last week is that. The height is just sort of overall for the site, the height limitations and. This is a 15 year buildout or so of the site. And so I'm just trying to understand why the 15 feet sort of applies across the board. I know that the thinking was so that when the arena is built to have a, you know, a. Free spam roof, if you will, that would allow the height that's needed for that. But I'm a little concerned that if somewhere down the road the city and national western, because the city will own most of the the land right after it's all purchased. And they could potentially just start marketing the 170 acres once it's all acquired and allow buildings to just be built up to that max limit. So I'm looking for what the protections are, if you will, for the neighbors that could turn this into a new, I don't know, a new mega center, if you will. And I mean, to some degree, it's sort of envisioned that way. But I mean, we could have lots of office buildings there or potentially housing on the site, maybe some dorm housing. But I guess I'm wondering where we put some of those limitations that don't allow the whole site to look like 150 acres. All right. So there is a transition built in to the zone district and it transitions down to Brayton Boulevard, down to five stories or 70 feet along Brighton Boulevard. And then on the east side of Brighton Boulevard, there's different zoning. It allows up to three stories. And on the just east of that alley is the residential area. So the intent of that transition is to provide those protections and transition the height down to the residential area of Elyria. So it's not 150 feet across the entire site. There are transitions built in. Now, as far as a new program and marketing the site, I might turn that over to Kelly to to talk about what that means in the future. I'm sure. Councilwoman. So the you know, the question really is how do we kind of protect the integrity of the plant itself? And and really, you refer to the master plan, right? The master plan, which we worked closely with the neighbors on and the national Western and sea issue. All our partners, you know, shows the the adjacencies of the buildings that are required to fulfill the program of all the partners, the relationships of those buildings to one another, the relationships of those buildings to the adjoining neighborhoods, whether it be Brighton Boulevard or the River or to the Coliseum to the south. And, you know, although you know what for build out this this center is anticipated to be 270 acres, which seems large, you know, for a site that's close to downtown. When you think about the scale of these buildings and the operational components that these buildings have to accommodate, both from the national, western and other big events, it's not that much land in terms of what we see. There's not like going to be a lot of extra land beyond the core program on the site itself for large, massive high rises and what have you. I think, you know, we are going through a process with the Community Advisory Committee and with all our partners to think about how do you truly activate the site for year round uses? But all those uses are going to have to be complementary to the core vision of CSU and the National Western in the city as partners in creating this year round destination. So we have a set of guiding principles that will measure all our uses against. We have the needs of our of our tenants, our anchor tenants like CSU in the National Western that have to be met. So I'm confident as we work through this together and that will require coming back to council many, many times as we go through this, that we'll, you know, we're going to stay true to the master plan as envisioned. So which of those additional things that need to be done will come back to city council? Is it I mean, because the master plan is not binding like zoning is. So what what additional approvals will be brought back to city council. So you know, obviously we will have to come back to work for tonight's exercise were only zoning those parcels that are owned by either the city or the national western. So we will come back to council for when additional land is acquired for the campus. So every time we come back, we'll have to be coming to council for for those actions. The second would be, I think we've shown that we're going to be collaborative and deliberative with council because we're so tied to making sure that the neighborhoods are a part of this conversation, whether it's contracts we issue to actually build the site or it's workforce development opportunities or it's housing at the station, near the station, at the National Western, whatever it may be, there's going to be a lot of interactions with council. And and I want to go back to Steve's, you know, example of a development agreement. We've toyed with the idea do we create some sort of a development agreement that memorializes in contract? That's the obligations that we need to do over the course of the phase development of the site. So I think that's a conversation we want to entertain with with council as well. I mean, we're we're going to look at all the different tools we have at our disposal. But ultimately, we've got to put in motion documents that hold us accountable for actually delivering the project. So I you know, we'll be coming back to council a lot in the course of at least the next four years. So if I may continue, Mr. President, I have one more question. So I know there have been some discussions about a community benefit agreement and some of the things that should be part of that are should include, you know, provisions for job training and hiring, goals of people in the neighborhood, land leases, tenant leases that might include , you know, opportunities where people in the community own some of the land that can be rented, things like including opportunities for people who are small business owners in the neighborhood to benefit from some of the relationships and contracting opportunities with National Western. So where does a community benefit agreement fit into the big picture? Do you see it as part of the development agreement? Where where does that fall? And kind of where where is that in the process in terms of conversations with the neighborhood? So we you know, we actually presented at a neighbor at a community advisory committee meeting based on ongoing conversations. With many members of the committee of the National Western Center Committee about how do we link in in as deliberate a way possible the the benefits of the two neighborhood plans and that of the national Western that those things work together are in tandem. And so I actually threw out the idea based on just kind of my own kind of national view of what's going on around the country, an idea of a of an MRU. You know, I've had a series of meetings with, you know, and conversations with members of the Community Advisory Committee, and that has evolved. I think the conversation has evolved. We actually had a really good meeting, what, a couple of weeks ago with the members of the National Western Center Advisory Committee about, you know, what's in the mow you now. And we actually talked about these ideas of implementation committees for the two neighborhoods and the feedback we we've gotten from a variety of groups is maybe that's not the way to go. So we're, we're right now we're, we're listening and we're looking at meeting with all the different groups in those two in those neighborhoods, having constant ways for them to provide feedback on budgeting, on, on prioritization of projects within their given neighborhood plans. So I've tried to signal or we've tried to signal that we're open. We're not going to lock ourselves into any one method of of doing business. We're going to find different ways to meet them where they are. And that if that means going to the churches are going to the schools or what have you, that's what we're going to do to get feedback, compile all that feedback, and then work with council representatives, work with the mayor's office to then build a work plan . And at the end of the day, this is all about execution. It's all about implementing what people have spent their time doing. So we're trying to build systems that hold us accountable, hold the neighborhoods collectively accountable with us through shared intent, through shared purpose to deliver. And that at every point, at any given time during the year, we can look at the list and say, we've got these ten things down, we got three more to do. Here's what we're going to do so everybody can follow along. So the memo you just to close this out is is evolving. It's going to actually, based on our last conversation, turn into a letter because the chant, one of the challenges we were having with the image use who signs the Matthew who rep who can represent the neighborhoods. So we're going to do a letter and I'm going to be I've been sharing drafts of the memo. You were going to convert it into a letter over the next week or two, and I'm going to send that back out to the group and get feedback. So who who does that email you? Who who is it between? Is it between the city or between the city and national western and the neighborhoods? So good question. So the this isn't just about the national western. There are six projects that are all where we're aligning the planning and implementation of those six project. This is about how do we link the neighborhood plans which are which are part of our six to the other projects that we're managing for shared benefit, right. So that the intent of what was in my view and now is probably going to become a letter shows that shared intent of how all these six projects are aligned, how they're linked and then our commitment to the neighborhoods that these things are going to happen together. So I just got your list, Councilwoman, of things you'd like to see. And so we'll talk about how we build. Some of those things are already kind of built in, but we'll make them more specific and keep sharing that with the community and get to a place where folks are comfortable with the letter. And then we're going to use that as a way to hold it up and say, here's what this is our shared understanding of what we're trying to do together. And then that gets immortalized ultimately in contracts, in workforce development centers and in the things that will be coming back to this body for over the course of time , that become more legal in nature and more binding in nature. Thank you, Karen. Yep. Can someone can each. Thank you, Madam President. And, Mr. President, I'm sorry. That was another one of those bad habits formed in council monitor as era. Two areas of question probably for Steve, but you can defer to Kelly one about use and two about parking. And I'm very much in the code weeds just for folks. No, because I mean, I think that the this is one of those things where the PowerPoint doesn't have a lot of anything in it. So you have to really look at the code language in terms of uses. I see the information about husbandry, plant and animal husbandry. I actually don't see anything about manufacturing or production, and I'm concerned about that because in theory, potentially, you may want to be doing something. I mean, maybe not animal slaughter, but maybe other kinds of food production package. I just am curious whether or not we've thought far enough ahead to include the kinds of ancillary things we may want to be doing related to the CSU type activities. Because I just and maybe I'm just not seeing them. You're just not seeing it. Yeah. Okay. So manufacturing at a custom level is is allowed. Manufacturing at general level is allowed manufacturing at a heavy level. And this is like the noxious stuff that's typically that use is only allowed in our industrial zone districts. That is not allowed. So custom instruction can because I can't find it. So if you can point me to the. Situation, if you are seeing the agricultural uses, then you need to turn back a few pages. It'd be under the manufacturing use category. I've got it here if you want to look. Okay. Just if you give me a section number you don't have. Okay? All right. Like 11 point. Three point. Okay. I see the charts, but I don't see the actual language section. You know, there's the. So are you, are you looking for the use definition. Yeah. Well you have, I mean there's quite a few yet definitions that may be the right. So we did not amend the use. So you have the red lines as well? I think so. I'm looking at what's in our computer systems. Right. So you're only seeing what was amended. We did not amend the use definition of manufacture. That's why I can't see it, because you're referencing it, but you're not changing any language. So there's nothing red lines. All right. That's very helpful. So. And then which and is it is it IMX or switch which definition in particular you were saying it's the general and the custom. Right. So general and custom manufacturing fabrication and assembly are allowed. However, manufacturing fabrication assembly heavy is not allowed. Got it. Thank you very much for that clarification. So the other question I had was about parking. So in the chart that, you know, the way that this reads for members of the public is that there's an existing chart that talks about the different uses and then it talks about what parking is required. And then it has all of the different campuses. And we've added a new column for this campus, but there's a lot of red line related to parking requirements. So what I'm trying to understand is, is every time you have a red line related to a parking requirement, does it then apply to all of the campus zone districts ? Because that's kind of the way it looks. It looks like it applies to it looks like we're changing it for all the campuses. Right. And so if you can explain that to me. Right. So where do you see red line for parking standards that use was not is not permitted in the other campus zone districts. I see. So you had to invent a standard. So we had to introduce the parking requirement because we're now allowing it in Campus National Research Center. So in all of our use tables throughout the code, if the use is not allowed, we don't put a parking requirement there. But to save space, it's not necessary. Okay. Got it. And then the last question and this is a bigger picture question is just I'm curious about doing parking in this way per use. And so we don't know all the uses that are going to be on this site. And I don't think you're going to have each individual building parking itself. Right. So I'm a little curious about the entire approach to parking and why we're using what I think is an approach much more designed for. Okay. Each building on this block is going to be developed and it will have its own parking requirement. In this case, we may be collective izing, and I'm just concerned about whether we're going to actually find ourselves within a margin of these parking requirements, but perhaps not exact. We're going to build a garage, for example, and then we're going to have a use. So I guess I'm just curious why this approach at all. Right. So most all of our uses have minimum parking requirements. Oftentimes, developers build more than that minimum. These minimum parking requirements are consistent with our urban centers and districts with their fairly low minimum parking requirements and will likely be the parking will likely be exceeded. Campus zone districts are treated as one zoned lot, one site, so a use here can put it's parking way over here. And so collectively, if you add up all of the square footage of the uses, then you get your minimum parking requirement. And that needs to be built on that campus somewhere. And likely it will be actually because the minimums are are low. Okay. So just I mean, it's kind of like the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning. Has someone added up all the square footage for the various types that we think we may have in the master plan that we adopted and compared it to the parking to see how they compare? Yeah. I mean, we had a whole, you know, bit of brain damage about the parking asks in a, you know, a generation ago, you know, we couldn't do the National Western Center because the parking requirements were so great that they needed, you know, hundreds more acres. We brought that back down to, you know, reality. But I just I guess I'm just curious if someone's compared the two. Yeah. So I've looked into comparing the two. It's an exact science because again, this is this is a minimum requirement. And what you're talking about is more market demand. And so we like to right size the minimum requirement. So it is below the market demand, not way above the market demands. We're not requiring way more parking to be built than what is demanded. And so Kelley can probably speak to a lot of parking studies that are upcoming at the National Western related to the market side, not the requirement side that. Yeah. So, Kelley, do you know in advance that these requirements are compact? Tebow with a parking study that we haven't done yet. Well, this is you know, we talk. It's a great question. I mean, it's it's you know, we talk about it in the master plan and it continues to be an ongoing conversation. And it also represents an opportunity because the parking studies that we're about to enter into are about getting to the right number and the right mix , using the right resources. And it's not just about looking at the campus in in isolation. It's about what's going on past the boundaries of the campus itself, the impact of having four commuter rail stations with literally within a mile, mile and a half of this center. And what might a circulator, as an example, look like, not just for picking folks up from those four stations, but what if you were to introduce an opportunity for, as an example, people to park downtown at the U.S. and and enjoy downtown as they came to the national restaurant? So the study is really starting to hone in on the specific mix of parking resources will need for the campus, but also overlaying the opportunity to leverage either existing assets that exist outside the campus or new assets that are just being built like RTD. So the study that will go through over the next year will really start to hone in on the right combination of parking needs for this center. Great. And thank you, Mr. President. Performance. Let me just close it out then by saying so you feel okay committing to parking now before this is all that I do. Okay, thanks. Thank you. Councilwoman Kathryn Lopez. Oh. Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry for going around. Stay away from me. I've got to get the. So this site and the zoning, I'm thinking of, you know, some of the issues and some of the things that have come up in the past and possible uses for the site, things that folks have wanted in the past. Right away I start thinking about grocery store now. Yes, this is campus. Yes, it's structural, but it's also food. Right. And so I'm wondering if there is if one that's allowed by that, that's an allowed use or permitted use. What kind of grocery store is allowed? What isn't? And also, have there been any discussions? And if you want to just elaborate on that, because I know that's a big need in the community, a need that's been going on for about 40, 50 years. I think the standard is every meeting we talk about grocery stores and it's been a healthy conversation and look specific to the national western. You know, the National Western's not going to solve that grocery needs for these neighborhoods. Right. But it can be part of the solution. So one of the components obviously was sea issues, involvement. There's a whole range of things that can happen. But specifically, we're looking at converting the 19 or nine stadium arena, restoring that building to its its luster and converting that into our version of the Pike Street market. If you've been to Seattle, you know, but for us, it would be all Colorado based products. And I think there's a huge opportunity for the local residents of Coalville response here to work with them and ready to start. If they want to start a business and they want to be in the food business, incubate them in the growth event of a business within the 19 or nine building. So that's one opportunity. But we are actually it's a much broader conversation because the the the food desert extends beyond Globeville various wants here to the east. Right. And so I think working with OPD and working with CPD and the residents really getting to the range of options. And then at the again, just as I said previously, it's about implementing and not waiting for all the packages to be done in terms of grocery. But what can we do incrementally to start to get services, basic services in these neighborhoods now? And I think we've got to get to build some consensus around that. So we're going to do that in the National Western Center will be part of that conversation. Can I follow up with that? Thank you, Mr. President. And and I really appreciate you expanding on that. I think that's a wonderful idea for the exchange building. And I do I am aware that the food desert is huge. It extends into Commerce City, actually. However, I think that's this is the biggest discussion in the most significant discussion of land use that we've had in this area in a very long time, notwithstanding the the neighborhood plans that just passed successfully. But I think that's an opportunity. When you look at the specialty market, you say absolutely. You know, absolutely. It provides jobs, provides business opportunity, meets a need. But unless the exchange accepts snap food stamps, it's you know, you were also looking at a different model. Right. And a more traditional model. It doesn't have to be huge. But I'm wondering, you know, if we could actually achieve that. Yes. It won't address the needs for the whole area, but at least it'll address one black out here. And hopefully those discussions are taking place on that site because unless we do something with that site, I don't see very much land out there that we can just convert into, you know, something that would have a grocery store. I mean, anyway, I just wanted to ask that question. Just throw it out there. But I do appreciate the answer in the thinking forward on that, the forward thinking on it. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilman Ortega. Just one last comment. Actually, it's kind of a question slash comment. Kelly, I'm assuming that in the. The Community Benefit agreement. The issue of truck traffic and especially construction traffic from the site and air quality issues. Those will all be covered. Can you speak to that? Yeah. You're assuming that some of this construction will be going on the same time. We're going to see some of the I-70 construction and trying to keep truck traffic out of the neighborhood is going to be a really big deal to make sure that, you know, we're all working together to address that. So yeah, I mean, obviously any one of our challenges will be and this isn't just for the national western, but conceivably could have multiple large construction projects happening in this region of the city at the same time. So as an example, it's one of the reasons why we're pushing so hard to get Brighton Boulevard improved in advance of both the National Western and I-70 projects beginning so that we do have a route coming out from the South as as an option. You know, we're accelerating in our conversations about Washington Street. We're going to have a technical session this summer on Washington and start to look for ways we can advance Washington Street improvements for the Denver portion, collaborating with our neighbors to the north. So, look, those are all going to be part of our commitment, right, to the neighborhoods that we're going to work with them on each of these issues. And and I think it's one of the benefits, again, back to the National Western about a phase development. So as we start to focus on the phases, right, we'll be able to be very deliberate about how we get construction traffic into the site, how it leaves versus the whole site being under construction at one time. So you know that that's just a common practice that will work with the neighborhoods on so that they know and that their neighbors know how we're going to tackle that project. And my my expectation will be as well, we'll work with CDOT, we'll work with RTD on any project that's going on. And will will bring forward ideas to the neighborhoods of of how we move in and out of these neighborhoods and what the sequencing looks like. And that will hopefully arrive at a at a reasonable approach for each of these projects. But I mean, that's just good project management practice. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Any other questions? Three other questions. 324 as amended. Seen none. Public hearing is now closed. Time for comments, Councilwoman Monteiro. Thank you, Mr. President. Just a little bit confused because this was council bill. This is for Council Bill 324 that if voted on, creates a new zone district called the Campus National Western Center. Is that correct? Okay. So then the next bill that we will look at, 325 will get into see will do an under another explanation about the actual official map amendments. Is that correct? Okay. So I want to say that I completely support this going forward, knowing that we're going to talk about the next Bill 325 to get into more specifics about the the amendments to as a reflection of our actual master plan. And so I would encourage my colleagues to support this as well so we can go on to the next bill and have another conversation about those pieces. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Monteiro. Councilman Ortega. I'm just going to make brief comments that will apply to both bills, because I think many of the comments from the public will probably be similar as well. I think what's important about this is we we all we're very vocal about national western talking about moving away. And Denver stepped up and has worked very closely with National Western to do everything possible to keep National Western here to look at the site in a way that we've never really looked at it. And the work that Kelly has done with the support of the administration to pull all of these six projects together and interweave them all so that they all interfaced with one another, has been a critical part of looking at this quadrant of the city, having a binding agreement that will outlive all of us because National Western will be here for another 100 years and the relationship to the community becomes really important and ensuring very similar to when the area campus came in and, you know, impacted residents that lived there. And there were some very solid agreements that were worked out with the West Side community. So I think that's very important as part of the the build out of this site of national Western. I mean, clearly, it's something that will benefit the city. They already do. But I think with some of the other partners that are now coming into play with this site will be. Unlike what we've seen. And I think the opportunities are are unlimited, but how we manage them becomes important. And that's where an agreement with the community becomes an important part. I mean, the fact that we have submitted our RTA application and we're waiting to hear on that we're going to the ballot with a request to allow the car rental tax and the lodgers tax to be extended to help pay for the new roads and to build a couple of new buildings and to acquire some additional land clearly creates incredible opportunities for this city, and I'm excited about that. But I also want to continue to make sure we're doing the right thing for these neighborhoods, which will be severely impacted with construction. And when you start adding I-70 in and what's going to happen, you know, with the truck traffic from you know, from that project, it the the impacts to these neighborhoods are going to be unprecedented. And so I just want to thank Councilwoman Monteiro for her efforts in working with the neighborhoods and in being part of the whole national Western process. I know Councilman Brooks will continue to be engaged in these efforts as well as will my office. And I just want to thank you all for your hard work in the neighborhood, folks, for their input in their ongoing efforts in working through these issues. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. My comments will apply to both as well, too, I think. Well, let's just say this. I'm excited to see this zone district format very, very excited because this is a real deal and this is the real thing. And this is almost a well, this is an epitome of your work. There's a lot of things that are in play here. And I think it's a tremendous opportunity when you think of jobs, when you think of business, when you think of culture, when you think of who we are. And it's a tremendous, tremendous opportunity, as I said in my previous comments, to address one of those needs. Right. Oh, my God. With the history, with with the opportunity that's there, with the need in the neighborhood, I think it really, really it could be a game changer. So I'm excited to support this excited to see this go. I can't wait to be able to see a concert there or to go see the new the new structural facilities. The area. I mean, one of the things that was really helpful was when Mr. Andrews took us around and showed us showed us those areas. So, you know, I could almost visualize what those home districts look like in the areas that we were taking a look at on the tour. So I'm happy to support this. And in the follow up to. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Lopez, Councilman Brown. Thank you, Mr. President. And thanks. For all of you in the room who have been involved. In this. It's been a long road, really. A lot of opinions from diverse groups. No doubt this is a massive, bold and ambitious plan. And what I like about it, it's why it is a plan is not rigid. It's not rigid. It's going to change. It's going to evolve over the next decade and the decade after that. But at its foundation is a love affair. That most of us I hope all of us, but most of us have with our Western roots, our Western heritage and the pioneer spirit. And David, you were right when you said that. It is hard that this plan really shows an. Appreciation and respect for local history, local history that you have observed up close and personal. This plan, really? Looks back. But at the same time, it looks forward. With an exciting and vibrant. And world class vision. And I only hope that in November that our residents. Would will cowboy and cowgirl up. And support this on the ballot. And thank you for bringing here tonight. And thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Brown. Any other comments? 324 as amended. Seen none. Madam Secretary. Raquel Montero. I Nevitt. I Ortega. Hi, Rob Brooks. Hi, Brown. I can eat Lemon Lopez. Mr. President, I. Madam Secretary, please close the vote. You announced the results tonight. Tonight's 324, as amended, has passed. All right. Next, we're moving on to Council Bill 325. Council member, will you please put 325 on the floor? Yes, sir. Mr. President. Be my pleasure. I move the companion bill to the bill. 324 Council Bill 325 series of 2015 be placed on final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and second in a public hearing for council bill 325 is now open. May we have staff report? Thank you, Mr. President. Steve Valley with community planning and development. This is the companion bill. Companion bill. Thanks for mentioning that number. This is the map portion of the text that we just discussed. So we're mapping it. We're landing the text at the National Western Center. So again, the national others are partners CSU, the West National, Western SOC, so City of Denver, History, Colorado and Denver Museum of Nature and Science. In addition to the National Western Center Citizens Advisory Committee of all contributed to this effort. This MAP amendment was initiated by Brad McKinnon, executive director of Community Planning and Development, and Kelly, lead executive director of the North Denver Cornerstone Collaborative. So here's the map. We are in Council District nine in the Elyria, Swansea statistical neighborhood. Zooming down to the proposed area. It's just over 50 acres in the the proposal to rezone from multiple zone districts, including the general industrial iby the industrial mixed use with the max of three stories, IMAX three and the campus entertainment ICMP and all with a use overlay along billboards. Let's take all of those in districts to see MP nwc you oh to the campus national western center and continuing to allow the billboard use overlay of the map that you see the properties shaded in blue are the proposed areas to be zoned.

A MOTION confirming the executive's appointment of Carlos Michel, who resides in council district nine, to the King County immigrant and refugee commission.

KingCountyCC_06012022_2022-0133

Thank you very much, Commissioner Paula, for being with us today. And I'm sorry that we did not get to hear from Commissioner Surridge, but we're now going to move on to three appointments to the commission there in the agenda item seven, eight and nine. They're going to be briefed together by Melissa Bailey on our central staff. We have, I believe, two of the three appointees with us today. We want to hear from them. We are going to be short on time. We still have another agenda item on the even year election ordinance, which does have some urgency because we do want to have that in time to be placed on the ballot if that is adopted. So, Melissa, please go right ahead. And this begins the staff report begins at ten. Thank you for your calls and good morning. Council members Melissa Bailey with central policy staff. As the Chair noted, this is a combined staff report for the three appointments which are item seven, eight and nine on the agenda, and they begin on page ten of your packet. As noted, the proposed motions are to confirm the executive's appointment of the following three persons to the King County Immigrant and Refugee Commission, who also became resident of Council District three for the remainder of a three year term expiring September 30th, 2024 five Wilhemina, who resides in Council District five for a partial term, expiring September 30th of this year. And Carlos Michel from Council District nine. For the remainder of a three year term expiring September 30th, 2024, are in the background section of the staff report that included some basic information about the commission, since you've just received a briefing straight to the section with Appointee Information, and I believe we have two of the appointees here who are eagerly waiting to talk with you . So I'm just going to give a little bit of information on appointing. So who wasn't able to be here today? Appointee and information for the appointees begin on page 11 of your packet. On page 12 is information for appointing yourself so based on rent in Highland area. He's currently a senior at Haven High School where he serves on the Associated Student Body Executive Board as the ACP parliamentarian. He will be attending Seattle Pacific University to study nursing. According to his application, Mr. Michelle is looking forward to bringing a youth perspective to the commission and he would serve on the commission as an organizational representative as he was nominated by a Lima fund out of Pueblo. That concludes my remarks that I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much, Melissa. And is there any question? Okay. I've given a short time. We do have two and two of the appointees with us today, and I'd like to have each of them introduce themselves and see if we have any questions. First of all, I'd like to congratulate you for your appointment and which is very exciting. And we hope to be confirming you at the full council meeting coming up. But let's start off with, let's see, the dual. Saidu Sadiki I'm saying that Ron, I'm sure that welcome very much and we thank you for joining us and we'd like to hear you give us a little bit of background that you have and what your thoughts are about during the commission. Yes, thank you. My name is Gul Siddiqui and I have been very excited to join the commission. I have been living actually in Arizona for the past 15 years, very actively involved for eight years with the International Humanitarian Organization, moved to Seattle, Washington, and was blessed to continue this work and this passion of working with refugees and with immigrants locally as well as internationally. Here in Seattle. I live in Sammamish and am. Also working as the development manager with the International Rescue Committee, which is a humanitarian global organization responding to the needs of refugees and one of the largest resettlement organizations here in Washington, bringing in a variety of refugees from many, many different countries . I have joined them since January this year. And in fact, it's interesting. I'm sitting outside their Redmond Hotel as we speak because I had an appointment to meet with the site director there. And we are serving and. Helping with their resettlement and the education and the medical services very needs that we are seeing for the families here . So I'm very excited to be part of the King County Commission to be able to channel this effort and bring the voices of the refugees to the commission. Thank you very much. And again, congratulations. How long have you been meeting with the commission? Just this year. Okay. Yes. Very recently? Yes. And do you have any thoughts on what you would like to focus on in your work in serving on the commission? Yes. So I would primarily. The need is to bring the voices of the refugees who are underserved and who have needs that many times are overlooked. Like Lily mentioned, there is hesitation in sometimes speaking of their needs. And we are seeing a few challenges, for example, of Afghan women who are not seeing medical doctors, even though they may be pregnant because of their hesitation of seeing male doctors. So there are a few very sensitive needs that we have to determine how to. Best, you know, bring the resources to them, help with education in this aspect and mainly like connect the dots of what are the resources that are available here in Washington to serve them, but do it in a very empathetic way and do it in a way that shows compassion from Washington. And really, you know, help them in rebuilding their lives here in Washington. Terrific. Again, thank you for your wanting to serve. And you seem to have an outstanding background for being a member of this commission. I'd like to turn now to our second guest appointing Gray Hyman. But he others who I believe like prefers to go by type and excuse me, prefers to go by check like a checklist. So welcome and congratulations to you as well for your appointment. And we'd love to hear from you about your background and as being able to serve on the commission. And you've got a Newt yourself, please. I forgot that. Thank you. Thank you. As you correctly said, my name is Amanat and. People want to call me tackler but shorten it so I can go by tackler. No problem. I am from Eritrea and I went to school in Ethiopia, so I have the passion to help people who speak. Amani and Teresa this are people who live in East Africa, Ethiopia and Eritrea, and as a refugee, I. Would share. My. Experience with. Newcomers to this and my profession. I am a teacher. I have been teaching for the last 30 years. At five. Years. I am. I came to send to the United States and now I am working for open doors for multicultural families. This is an agency who specializes with. Different cultural people getting services for their children with disability. So we. We, we. Kind of unite disability and the cultural diversity that means people from different cultures having their loved ones with disability need culturally responsive services and in open doors we help with this kind of services. My focus is on Amharic and Greek speaking families, though there are other families from East Africa chicken in Tanzania that are included in my caseload. So what would I focus is I would focus on the resettlement of these people. As I said earlier, there are a lot of issues in Ethiopia, Eritrea. Other areas in South Africa, Yemen. All these people, they come to America and when they come here, they find very complex process. As earlier said, they were thinking to succeed easily and to be to integrate easily into the community. But when they come here, they find a lot of problems. So I would share my experience of resettling into the system and trying to be able at least to be self-sufficient on your own and then to help others as well. So that is my intention coming to the commission. I think that would be suffice. And I think you. Thank you very much for your willingness. And I can tell enthusiasm in serving on the commission. You bring an extraordinary background to that role. Are there any questions of my colleagues from my colleagues, council members and asking? Thank you, Chair Coe Wells. I'm sorry for talking so much today. I know we have a packed agenda, but this is a terrific agenda. You. I want to thank both of the appointees for their willingness to serve. And just to do a little advertisment here. A few years ago, the council, as we all know, the county owns our hospital. It's run with you, Doug. Medicine and the council a few years ago took steps to make sure we protected the clinics that are offered up there. And Harborview offers a very unique, as they describe it, International Medicine Clinic for high quality primary and mental health care services for refugees and immigrants 16 years of age and older. They have tremendous and broad language expertize and really have developed an expertize in this area. And I just given the presentation here, an update from the Refugee Commission and this new appointee. TS I thought I would mention it and perhaps encourage them to reach out for a presentation to make sure that the clinic is being connected with leaders in the community who are in direct contact with folks who maybe could use their services. It's a tremendous service we provide here and is more important than ever, I think, given the strife and dislocation around the world, much of which is landed here on our doorsteps in King County. Thank you, Councilmember Dombroski. And are there any other questions or are you all ready to move on for action on these appointments? I assume that's already. Let me just say something. Between. The expenditure, the the other appointee, Carlos Michael. He is a is taking on the remainder of a term and he was raising rent and goes to Hayes in high school as a member of the SB executive board and is the ACP parliamentarian, which is a very useful thing to happen, is attending and going to attend Seattle Pacific University to study nursing next year. So supporters amendment as well. Cool. That's in my district where he will be attending college. So any unless there's any concern expressed, we will go ahead and take action on these three appointments. And Andy Nicholas, can we combine these into one vote or do we need to take them up separately? I think taking off separately would just be the easiest. Okay, we will do that then. So, Councilmember Dunn, as vice chair, I appreciate you're making these motions. The first one would be proposed motion 2020 20130. A proposed motion. 2020 20130. Okay. Any discussion? Will I please call the roll? Thank you, Jeff Caldwell. As I'm able to achieve I. Councilmember DEMBOSKY. I. Councilmember Dunn. I have. Councilmember Thurmond. All right. Councilmember Berry, I. That's the of the girl. Does the member ban Dybala? Councilmember. Hello. I. Chuck Hall Well, I the board is ayes, no nos. The council member bonded by our excuse. Very good. With our vote. We've approved proposed motion 2020 20130, which we will send with the due cast recommendation for the consent agenda at a June 14th Council meeting. Okay. Next Council Member Dunn proposed motion 2020 2013 to be proposed. Motion 2020 20132. Thank you. Any discussion? Okay. Well, please call the roll. Thank you, chef. Caldwell Council member. Balducci High Council member. DEMBOSKY, I council member. Done. I. Council Member McDermott, I. Councilmember Perry, I. Council member at the grow i. Council member Van de Boer. Council member, Sally. I. Scott Caldwell I know what is air no nos in council member Bundaberg Bower. Excuse me. Thank you. With our vote we have approved proposed motion 2020 20130. Where am I? Three, two. We will send with with the Duke's recommendation for the consent agenda to the June 14th Council meeting. And then lastly, I council and return proposed motion 2020 20133. View Proposed Motion 2020 20133. Okay. Any discussion? Okay, Bill and Kirk, then please call the roll. Thank you, Chair Caldwell Council Member By the time I council member DEMBOSKY I council member Dunn I had. Councilman McDermott. I. As a member. Perry, I. Council member Afterglow II Council Member Van de Boer. Council member, Sally High. Chuck how well on the boat is ayes no nos in council member type our excuse thank you with our vote we've approved proposed motion 2020 20133 which we will send with the deepest recommendation or the consent agenda to the June 14th Council meeting. And thank you both of the appointees who are here today. I really enjoyed meeting with you, reading about your background and am very, very. Impressed. And believe you're going to make very strong commissioners. You do not need to attend our June 14th meeting because we placed the appointments on consent for confirmation and we will be notified. You, of course you can you can tune in as well, but congratulations. Okay. Our last item on the agenda is proposed ordinance 2020 20180, which proposed to the King County Charter to move elections for state and county offices from odd numbers to even numbered years. And we would by passing this, we would send this to the voters of the county for their ratification or rejection of the November eight, 2022

AN ORDINANCE relating to the Seattle Department of Transportation; authorizing the Director of Transportation to enter into a lease agreement with the National Railroad Passenger Corporation for Amtrak’s continued use and occupancy of a portion of King Street Station to provide passenger rail services.

SeattleCityCouncil_03072016_CB 118626

The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Reporter The sustainability and transportation committee will read the report. The report at the sustainability and Transportation Committee agenda item three Cancel 118 626 relating to the Department Transportation authorizing the Director of Transportation to enter into a lease agreement with the National Railroad Passenger Corporation for Amtrak's continued use and occupant occupancy of a portion of King Street Station to provide passenger rail services. The committee recommends the bill pass. So this bill would allow starting a new 20 year lease agreement with Amtrak for the King Street Station. The agreement allows Amtrak to occupy the first floor, as they do today, and clarifies the city's right to lease leased spaces on the second and third floor, which will be occupied by the Office of Arts and Culture and periodically be used as a gallery space. Are there any comments or questions? Super exciting train stations. I knew Councilmember Johnson was excited about that. Art and art, of course. Please call their role in the passage of the bill. Burgess Gonzalez. I. Purple. Johnson Juarez I. So long. I. President Burgess our president O'Brien. High. Seven in favor not oppose. The bill passes in the terrible Senate. Item number four.

AN ORDINANCE granting permission to the Board of Regents of the University of Washington to continue to operate and maintain an existing underground pedestrian concourse tunnel under and across 6th Avenue, north of University Street; repealing Section 8 of Ordinance 123793; and providing for acceptance of the permit and conditions.

SeattleCityCouncil_09202021_CB 120174

Agenda item eight that's 4120 174. Granted permission to the Board of Regents of the University of Washington to continue to operate and maintain an existing underground pedestrian concourse tunnel under cross. The committee recommends that the bill pass. Thank you so much. This also comes from Councilmember Peterson's committee. So I'm going to hand it over to him to. Provide the committee report. Thank you, council president, colleagues. The University of Washington has been the long time operator of a pedestrian concourse tunnel. Downtown Council 120174 renews the university's permit to the test train tunnel. Its It runs under Sixth Avenue, north of University Street. This renewal is for 15 years, with an option to renew for an additional 15 years. The committee unanimously recommended that we pass the bill. Thank you. Thank you so much. Are there any comments on the bill? Seeing and hearing? No comments will occur. Please call the rule on the passage. Of the. Bill slot. Yes. Strauss Yes. Her vote? Yes. Suarez Yes. Lewis Yes. Morales A mosquito I. Peterson Hi. President. Gonzalez Hi. Nine favor. None of those. A bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will. He's affixed my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Excuse me. Excuse read item nine into the record. Agenda item nine Council Bill 1 to 0 161 relating to the sale of public utilities, updating water regulations to conform to current standards, making technical corrections and amending Section 21.0 4.4 87. Mr. Code Committee recommends the bill pass.