All public speakers spoke in opposition.

[Scroll down for further.]

• Laurie Angel, a candidate for the 8th district Council seat now held by incumbent Al Austin (who made the Feb. 16 motion to draft the proposed sales tax hike), testified that the LB sales tax hike would hurt local business competitiveness and regrets the lack of public outreach prior to bringing the measure forward. "...It adversely affects business. It adversely affects the economy. I would think that a measure like this that will impact business would have come before your Economic Development Commission first...It's not very well thought out in terms of accountability..."
  

• John Deats questioned City Hall-released survey results claiming support for the measure, and said his neighbors are unanimously opposed to it. "I could not find a single household that had any support for this sales tax measure, none whatsoever, and they all threatened to flee with their dollars if it does pass." Mr. Deats added, "Why are we not seeking parity with Signal Hill on our oil extraction tax? It's nuts not to be there. We're barely at half of what Signal Hill's oil extraction tax is..."

• Tom Stout, co-founder of the LB Taxpayers Association noted that four words in the City Attorney-drafted ballot text to be shown to voters that let Council spend the tax on any general items it wishes. "You guys did learn something [from 2008 Prop I proposed parcel tax], you can fool a lot of the people but not 66%, so now you're down to 50 (percent plus one)...You added something to this [ballot text] wording "and maintain general services." That's a free pass to spend my money on anything you want. That's pretty pathetic on your part, not unusual but pathetic..."

Advertisement

Advertisement

No representatives of LB's organized business community or any small or independent business owners spoke.

After public testimony, Councilman Supernaw (reading in part from prepared text) proposed a somewhat convoluted addition to the last week's addition of a Mayor-chosen, Council-approved "Citizens Advisory Committee" which in the City Attorney's text said would "periodically review the City's use of the Tax" [without decision making power or control over spending the tax.] The "Citizens Advisory Committee" was added on Feb. 16 at the suggestion of Councilwoman Mungo with Councilman Supernaw's support.

On Feb. 23, Councilman Supernaw proposed adding the following regarding the "Citizens Advisory Committee": that any budget recommendations regarding the sales tax expenditures be presented to Financial Management for analysis and review, with Financial Management preparing a report to the Council's [Mayor-chosen] Budget Oversight Committee discussing the budget recommendations and their alignment with the Council's legislative action plus a quarterly report to the Council on the Citizen Advisory Committee's work and any approved expenditures.

But Councilman Supernaw's Feb. 23 wordy addition (accepted without resistance by the Council) stops short of legally ensuring that the tax revenue will be spent for the desirable items that the City plans to show voters on the ballot text (see below), also stated as the "intent" of the Council, although the Council didn't include them in the tax measure text itself, meaning they're not legally guaranteed and current or future Councils could spend the tax revenue on any general fund items they desire.

The Council could have provided taxpayers with a legal guarantee of specific funidng by removing four words from the proposed ballot text ["to maintain general services"] and adding the specific uses to the tax measure itself. Under the CA Constitution (Prop 13 and Prop 218), that would provide a legally binding guarantee to taxpayers by requiring current and future Councils and Mayors to spend the tax money for those specific purposes with 2/3 voter approval. No Councilmen) moved to do so on Feb. 23. The Council action comes to a second vote on March 1.

Advertisement

Advertisement

When given the floor by Mayor Garcia on Feb. 23, Councilman Supernaw first said he didn't disagree with many of the points made by the public speakers. Regarding part of Laurie Angel's testimony, Councilman Supernaw said that several weeks ago he'd asked staff "do we have enough time to educate the voters?" but then acknowledged that staff couldn't answer his question because it was out of staff's purview. [Why did he ask the question?]

Councilman Supernaw then went on to say, "But here we are tonight. Here it's before us tonight" and continued:

[Councilman Supernaw] Politically, the easiest thing I could do is stand on a minority vote, go down in flames on a minority vote and grandstand on that. And a week ago, I just didn't have a good feeling about that. I don't sleep better at night if I'm on the wrong side of any one vote.

So I read in the Long Beach Business Journal and the Press Telegram of an Oversight Committee. So I spent the Monday holiday [Feb. 15] and all day last Tuesday [Feb. 16] working on that and Councilwoman Mungo brought it forward and then after that was read I asked the City Attorney what would the next step be? And he said I'll have to write that up and bring it back tonight. And that's where we are.

In terms of a need, I've said it many times before there's no question in the 4th Council district, we're the only district without a fire engine. We've had just anecdotally three houses that were total losses in my district due to fire. In terms of infrastructure, I have an entire western side of my district where only one street has been paved in 12 years. So we have some tremendous needs.

But then the folks are cynical. They're not sure if we'll get this money if they'll get done. Anyway, all I can say to my constituents is there's a new sheriff in town. We're going to address these things on an as-needed basis, not geographically.

I really appreciate what the City Attorney did. I think he's got a good proposal here, but I would just like to beef it up a little bit with a friendly amendment and I'd like to read that now.

"This initiative will include a requirement that a Citizen Advisory Committee will be formed to support the oversight of the expenditures from the proposed sales tax revenue. In addition, this Citizens Advisory Committee, to have a Committee, the intent of the Council action shall be considered in any future expenditure of these monies. To ensure that expenditures are consistent with the intent of this body, any budget recommendations regarding expenditures associated with this sales tax shall be presented to Financial Management for analysis and review. Financial Management shall then prepare a report to the Budget Oversight Committee, discussing the recommendations and their alignment with the legislative action that is being taken by the way of this motion,

Further, Financial Management will provide Council with a quarterly report outlining the work of the Citizen Advisory Committee as well as any approved budget expenditures. Although the action of this Council and Mayor cannot bind these actions of future Councils or Mayors in regards to the proposed expenditures of the proposed sales tax increase, this Council can state very clearly the intent of this action, and expect that the public should hold accountable all future legislators in regards to the expenditures associated with these proposed sales tax increased revenue."

And with that kind of language, I just think that's stronger than maybe we'd have with a different type of tax. So that's my motion.

Advertisement

Advertisement

There was no Council resistance to the additions Councilman Supernaw proposed.

As it stands, the proposed ballot text (approved by the Council on Feb. 23 as drafted by the City Attorney's office) would show voters the following on their ballot:

[All caps in original] "CITY OF LONG BEACH PUBLIC SAFETY, INFRASTRUCTURE REPAIR AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES MEASURE. To maintain 911 emergency response services; increase police, firefighter/paramedic staffing; repair potholes/streets; improve water supplies; and maintain general services; shall the City of Long Beach establish a one cent (1%) transactions and use (sales) tax for six years, generating approximately $48 million annually, declining to one half cent for four years and then ending, requiring a citizens' advisory committee and independent audits, with all funds remaining in Long Beach?"

By including four words -- "and maintain general services" (highlighted below) -- in the ballot text, and not including specific uses in the tax measure itself, the measure is a "general tax" that current and future Councils can spend on any general fund items they choose.

Adding the words "and maintain general services" to the ballot text ensures the measure is a "general tax" that current and future Councils can spend on any general fund items they choose

City Attorney Parkin also clearly stated during his Council presentation that the tax increase is a General Tax measure.

The proposed tax increase is written to drop to half a percent in six years [when nearly all of the current Council incumbents will be gone or going] and end in ten years unless extended by a future vote of the people. No Council members asked what would happen in six years when half of the tax revenue disappears [and city government costs will presumably be higher, not lower.]

The item is scheduled to return to the Council on March 1 -- when Council members can make final motions, if any -- before the proposal is placed on the June 7, 2016 ballot.

The Council also approved including a resolution -- which acknowledges it can't legally bind future actions of future Councils -- stating that the Council "expresses its intent" if the sales tax increase [referred to as TUT or transaction and use tax] is enacted to prioritize spending of its revenue for the following purposes:

[Non-binding resolution text] A. Public Safety: Future TUT revenue may be spent on the costs of providing public safety services, consisting of: police patrol, response, investigation, apprehension and law enforcement, emergency 9-1-1 response, fire prevention and suppression services, paramedic services, and ambulance services.

B. Public Infrastructure: Future TUT revenue may also be spent on the costs of improving and maintaining streets, sidewalks and alleys, improving and upgrading the City's water system for conservation, and improving and upgrading storm water storm drain systems.

The non-binding resolution explicitly states:

The adoption of this Resolution shall not be construed, and it is not the City Council's intent, to convert the proposed TUT into a "special tax", as that term is defined Article XIIIC §1 (d) of the California Constitution, California Government Code §§ 53721 and 53724, or any combination thereof. Although this Resolution expresses the intent of the current City Council to spend future TUT revenues for certain priorities, this Resolution is non-binding on any future or subsequently constituted City Council, and the TUT shall remain a "general tax" as that term is defined in Article XIIIC §1 (a) of the California Constitution, and as set forth in the proposed TUT ordinance.

Developing. Further to follow.