Speaker 1: Okay. We're now moving on to review the two new business items. Next, which will be 30 and 32. Item 30, please.
Speaker 0: Communication from Vice Mayor Richardson councilman's and ask Councilmember your UNGA recommendation to add language to the 2022 to 2023 state legislative agenda in support of the proposed 110 million allocation for goods movement workforce training facility located at the San Pedro Bay Port Complex.
Speaker 1: Rosemary Richardson.
Speaker 2: Thank you. First, I want to thank Councilmember Durango for partner me with me on this motion. I know that it's sort of timely and the May revised just came out and our state legislative agenda is coming back to the council soon. So this was incredibly timely to get this in front of the city council. In the state budget, there's proposed a major investment into the San Pedro Bay Port Complex, and it's for a goods, goods movement, workforce training facility. And we are the largest combined sea port complex in America and we have no training facility. So it's incredibly important that we as a city and as a port complex and as a state, continue to invest in the training well-being of our workforce. This is $110 million investment from the state in the governor's budget. It is not guaranteed. So we need to do our part to make sure that we advocate to protect those those funds. And it's a part of a larger $2.3 billion.
Speaker 1: Package for our ports.
Speaker 2: It's a significant, significant investment. And it's important, again, toward creating a resilient workforce and accelerating our are the jobs available in our port, particularly with the challenges ahead. And so I'm glad to bring this forward tonight and I encourage in I. Thanks so much.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Ringo.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mary. I want to thank Councilmember Vice Mayor Richard you for bringing this forward. I think it's very important that we.
Speaker 7: Maintain a very effective and trained.
Speaker 3: Workforce. This is one of those occasions where it's a win win for everybody, and I'm glad to have to support it.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Allen.
Speaker 6: Yes. I also want to thank Vice Mayor Richardson and Councilwoman and de Haas and Councilmember Urania for bringing this item forward. I think that it is vital that we provide training for goods movement workers as we roll out new equipment and technologies in this space. Zero emissions equipment requires new skills, infrastructure and maintenance and training. Our workers in these skills of tomorrow will speed up deployment of zero emission and higher efficiency goods movement equipment. So I'm very happy to support this item.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilwoman Price.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And this is a fantastic item and I'm glad to support it. I have publicly supported this and talked about it on multiple occasions. I think as we look at the transition in our goods movement industry and where we're headed as a nation in areas of technology and improvement to some of our efficiencies, having a facility like this is huge to get everyone trained up and skilled for the next level of technology and deliverance of services. So I think this is fantastic. I also want to just highlight the fact that that I think that it's very, very important. We have our Port Transportation Infrastructure Committee now. We did have a presentation from the port at one of our last meetings, and Dr. Hossa Garber talked about this facility and the excitement around this facility. I know Councilwoman Zendejas and Councilman Mongo were on that call and we got a little bit of a preview and very exciting. So I was happy to have been able to talk about the facility a bit there and all the great things that we're seeing for not just the workforce, but obviously the the efficiency of our port as well as the job stabilization and retention of our port. So this is a great item. I'm happy to support it. Thank you, Vice Mayor, for bringing it.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Austin.
Speaker 7: Yes, obviously, this is a this is an item, I think, that we have collectively as a city council have gotten behind and pledged our support for already. I.N.S. See our government relations director here. I wanted to ask the city manager in if. Do currently have an item in our state ledger agenda. I don't have it in front of me. And I've been on the State Ledger Committee for for several years now. Do we already have an item that actually speaks to this? And I know this particular item is is us basically cheerleading in there an initiative that the governor has already put forth? And so our support of the state legislative committee or the city council would be to the legislators asking them to support this as well. Is that what this actually does?
Speaker 1: Yeah. So in terms of the agenda itself, as part of the priorities for this year, our focus statements, we do have a general statement in there around supporting port infrastructure specifically related to.
Speaker 3: You know, clean.
Speaker 1: Infrastructure and workforce development opportunities, but not specifically this project. So this would allow us to include this specific project. And then at this point in the process, we would be working directly with our delegation and the Budget Committee chairs, most likely to advocate for.
Speaker 2: This project.
Speaker 1: To remain in the budget.
Speaker 7: So my question is, do you foresee that anybody in our state led delegation would have an opposition to the governor's proposal to give 140 $110 million to the port?
Speaker 1: Do I see any of our delegation members.
Speaker 7: Receiving no resistance from our state legislators?
Speaker 1: No. I imagine that they would be supportive. I don't know for sure. All of our delegation members, but I know they're aware of the project and supportive of the port's efforts. So this would be to make sure that the rest of the legislature that's negotiating the budget.
Speaker 7: Prioritize this as well. Well, I'm happy to support this again. I think we've supported this year after year after year in our state legenda in a general sense, this specifies that and happy to communicate this to our state legislators.
Speaker 1: Vice Mayor Richardson.
Speaker 2: I want to thank the Council for their strong support here. And yes, we have generally been supportive of infrastructure. I think it's important to note the original and the original proposal was 150 million and then it went down 210 million based on discussions. So this is really about getting into the conversation and make sure we protect the investment so we actually have the adequate resources to deliver the facility. So thanks everyone. Look forward to an IBO. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Is there a public comment on this.
Speaker 4: That there are any members of the public that would like to speak on item 13 person? Please line up at the podium in Zoom. Please use the raise hand feature or dial star nine now. In person.
Speaker 3: Good evening, Mayor Garcia, members of the council. My name is Rob. No, tough. I'm the policy director of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, where we proudly represent over 800,000 hardworking women and men across all industries in Los Angeles County, many of whom work and live right here in Long Beach. In answer to your question, Councilmember Austin, there are actually some legislators who are opposed to this. I don't want to put anybody name out there, but in conversations we've had, there actually are people who are opposed. And we really appreciate the strong support from this council tonight. As all of you are aware, the economic activity generated at the port is responsible for one in nine jobs in Southern California. And to put an even finer point on that statement, the overwhelming majority of the jobs at the port are good union jobs that allow workers to keep a roof over their heads, put food in the fridge and come home safely to their families at the end of a hard day's work. The jobs obviously include Long Shore, but they also include construction and trucking, all of which require good, honest work and all of which offer an opportunity into the middle class. But in order to fulfill that vision and to showcase the true potential of the port as a hub of good, unionized job creation, we have to focus on preparing the next generation of our workforce by training with the necessary skills to succeed, which is exactly what this facility aims to do if done right. This training facility at the port can serve as a regional asset that upskill those workers who are stuck in debt and minimum wage jobs. And if done right, this training facility at the port can target and train traditionally at risk populations like women, people of color, and our immigrant brothers and sisters. And lastly, if done right, this training facility can prepare or will prepare the workforce of tomorrow by training them to use new zero emission technologies that preserve our environment, while also adding to the ranks of the robust unionized workforce down at the port. As Councilmember Allen said. So as they say, the future begins today and it begins by securing the proposed $110 million in funding as currently allocated by the governor's budget. For these reasons, we're fully supportive of tonight's motion, and we'd like to thank Vice Mayor Richardson for bringing this forward, as well as the support of council members it would. UNGER And then the House for also signing onto this item. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Dave Chappelle, Third District. Just like to echo the previous speakers comments that if done right, this could be quite a asset. I'd like to speak in support of it with obviously a certain emphasis on not only zero emissions technologies and other ways to decarbonize the footprint of port operations, but also to preserve the current and hopefully expand the health and safety provisions as well as the current workforce kind of standards that the people who have jobs currently in our ports have had. I've had friends who haven't seen daylight from from inside a container ship for the better part of the past ten months because they've been busy dealing with the backlog. A lot of these workers, frankly, are concerned about automation. They're concerned about a lot of the plans it has and having a investment in the workforce itself and in maintaining, as we just heard, the current level of jobs and perhaps even expanding them is going to be a vital part of our economic recovery, not only in the short term, but in long term kind of regional dynamics . Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Let me let me just add before we vote, this is actually a fantastic proposal. I want to also just think the both the ports on the port of Long Beach side and the Port of Los Angeles that have actually been working on this on this proposal for a while. And I just want to thank our Port of L.A. partners. I know this also would not be possible without them. For those that are also unaware, the facility itself is also scheduled to also not just provide all these great services, but it's actually believe half of it is on the port of Long Beach side and the other half is on the Port of L.A. side. And so it really is going to be a joint facility and even an even in location. And I want to thank the port team for their incredible work and really the governor for really leading this effort in making sure that the funding was and has been in place. And great that we're going to be supporting this officially office as part of our state package as well. So thanks to everyone involved and particularly all the workers who've been advocating for the facility as well. And with that will do a recall.
Speaker 0: District one. My district, too.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 0: Mr. three. I. District four.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 0: District five. I. District six. I. District seven. I. District eight. All right. District nine.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 0: Motion is carried.
Recommendation to add language to the 2022-23 State Legislative Agenda in support of the proposed $110 million allocation for a Goods Movement Workforce Training Facility located at the San Pedro Bay Port Complex as included in the Governor of California’s proposed FY 2023 Budget.