Speaker 1: Thank you. Okay. Now we're going back to the council agenda. And we're going to first hear items 24 and 12 and 20. I've had requests hold on, 24, 12 and 14, and then we'll do the rest of the of the item. Okay. First up, item 24.
Speaker 2: Communication from Mayor Garcia Recommendation to approve Mayor's designees as argument writers for the two Long Beach ballot measures appearing on the November 8th, 2016 California statewide election ballot.
Speaker 1: Think you just want to go over the process on this similar to how we did it for Measure A, the clerk put out a call for argument writers that was published published in a couple of the publications as well as press release and in her media and social media. So that went out for the two city items, all for the regulation of medical marijuana business item. There were six folks signed up for one that signed up against for the Long Beach marijuana taxation measure. There were three that signed up for two that signed up against. I put all the names signed up on there with the exception of one person that was the additional person on six for the four of of medical marijuana businesses can only have a total of five. And so the one person that was not placed there was double place on the against line anyways for the second measure. So they got a chance to do the other one. So let me read those names in case you don't have it in front of you. Regulation of medical marijuana businesses. Six people applied Bob Kelton, D Andrews, Janine Pearce, Toni Tauranga and Randy Houser. Five mispronounced that name. The six person that applied was Diana La Jean's. So the the first five were the ones that were selected and Bob Kelton is selected as the lead in that group. The guests with Mark Greenberg on that only one person applied on the Long Beach marijuana taxation measure. Three people applied. Robert Garcia, myself, Mike Terry, who's the fire chief, and Robert Luna, who the police chief two people signed up against, which is Larry King and Diana La Jean's. Larry King will be the lead proponent on that and I will be the lead proponent on the fourth side. In addition, as a reminder, if a name of a name is a has an asterisk on your form, it means are the lead proponent. They have final say in approving argument and lead writers may add more names provided there are open slots, but that's less than five on an argument. So if, for example, Mr. Greenberg, since he was the only one, if he would like to find other people to add to his list, he's welcome to do so and so on. And this follows the charter process that the the city attorney and the city clerk worked on for this process like they did for measure. Right? So with that, there is a a motion and a second. Councilman Austin, do you have any comments? Councilwoman Gonzales, do you have any comments? I'm sorry. Is that a yes or no? Okay. Councilwoman Price.
Speaker 4: I do have some comments, and it would be much easier just to not say anything. But you all know me well enough to know that I won't do that. I'm a little bit disappointed, honestly, in saying that two of my colleagues have signed on to support this initiative. And although we all have the right and the freedom to express our our opinions and our interests, and we have the right to free speech as representatives of the city of Long Beach, with a fiduciary duty to care for the residents of this city, I would ask them to reconsider signing on to this for for a variety of reasons. One, the legislation that's proposed limits the police's ability to investigate potential crime. It's specifically within the draft ordinance, limits our police's ability to investigate in any manner that they would do with any other business. It creates a citizen task force to opine on the validity of a citation, thereby conflicting with our charter in regards to the powers and the duties that are reserved for the City Council. It prohibits the assessment of regulatory fees for cost recovery by the city. Again, violating our charter, the city charter that we are all bound to follow as representatives of the citizens of the city of Long Beach. It repeals the taxes that our voters voted in 2014 regarding medical marijuana. Litigation is expected based on the memorandum that was provided by the city manager's office and staff. It requires a $5.1 million ongoing cost. And the revenue, which is projected to be at the middle term of $7.1 million, is expected to be faced with a cost to the city of $12.2 million annually. That's a $5 million shortfall, not counting the first year's one time startup fees. As representatives of the citizens of the city of Long Beach, with the fiduciary duty to vote in the best interest of the residents. I cannot fathom supporting an initiative that directly conflicts with our city. Charter requires us to undertake a $5 million shortfall and is very likely going to land us in litigation shortly after it is enacted if it isn't enacted. I ask you if you are going to sign on as a proponent of this initiative, do you intend to recuse yourself from the vote regarding litigation? Because that vote will come. And as proponents of this initiative, do you really stand in an objective place? So with that, I thank you, Mr. Mayor, for giving me the opportunity to speak.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And for clarification, there's two measures in front of us. I think the council was referring to the first measure, which is regulation of medical marijuana businesses. And Councilwoman, there was another person that came up. Nope. Did that get removed? Councilman Austin.
Speaker 3: Yes. I just want to thank Councilmember Price for making those points and certainly made some great arguments against the measure. I'm sure surely you'll be working with Mr. Greenberg. I just want to clarify that I have signed on. I made a motion to approve this, and it has nothing to do with. It only has to do with approving the ballot, argued those who are arguing for and against the initiative.
Speaker 4: I respond to that only because my name was mentioned. No, Mr. Watson, I don't intend to get involved in any side of this debate because I would like to stay in a place of objectivity when we are going to be voting on potential litigation in this case. And I do not believe that it's appropriate for a council member to sign on on an initiative that is going to have a detrimental impact for the city one way or the other. So that's my personal belief.
Speaker 3: I got you. But I was.
Speaker 0: Playing piano a compliment.
Speaker 4: That but I didn't want the the people who might be watching to walk away thinking that I'm going to be working with somebody behind the scenes. Because if I were going to do that, I would sign on to it. But again, ethically, I don't believe I believe that's a violation of our fiduciary duty.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. And just before we go to a vote, I'm going to open up for public comment. Of course, this process is the the process that is laid out in our charter as far as ballot designees. So the call for names, the names being submitted, the names going to the council and putting the names on for the signatures of the ballot. And so that's what we have in front of us. And I do have a comment. If anyone has any public comment on this, see? None. Okay. Thank you. With that, then please cast your vote. And as a reminder, ballot statements are do that. Madam Quirk, I think it's the 19th for these folks.
Speaker 2: That's correct.
Speaker 1: Okay. So for the folks listed below, it's the 19th. All the ballot arguments have to be submitted.
Speaker 2: Motion carries.
Recommendation to approve Mayor's designees as argument writers for the two Long Beach ballot measures appearing on the November 8, 2016 California Statewide Election ballot.