[Scroll down for further.]

Today's process is the result of an action by the City Council -- and two Councilmembers in particular (Mungo and Supernaw) -- who didn't advocate applying the Prop 13/Prop 218 procedure under California's constitution (that LB Councilmembers swore an oath to uphold) which with 2/3 voter approval would legally guarantee taxpayers specific items from the tax increase.

Instead, on Feb. 23, 2016 the Council voted 8-0 (Austin absent) to put a sales tax increase on the ballot that showed voters a title and text listing specific items although the measure was legally a "blank check" general tax increase that City Hall can impose with a 50%+1 vote and current and future Councils can spend on any general fund items they wish.

Councilwoman Stacy Mungo (in whose 5th district voters ultimately rejected Measure A) and Councilman Daryl Supernaw (in whose Los Altos precincts voters also rejected the measure which carried districtwide) proposed what they called a Citizens Oversight Committee, hand-picked by the Mayor with no legal power to change Mayoral spending recommendations or Council spending actions.

The Mayor announced his picks today. We list them below:

[Garcia release text]

Jane Netherton

Jane Netherton is the Chair Emeritus of International City Bank, and formerly the CEO and Board President there. She has over 25 years of experience in the financial industry and has a long history of public service in Long Beach, including terms on the Board of Directors for the Conservation Corps of Long Beach, the Convention & Visitors Bureau, and the CSULB Foundation. She also served as Chair of the Redevelopment Agency and is active in the Rotary Club. She lives in Long Beach in District 3.

Joel Yuhas

Joel Yuhas is the CEO and President of St. Mary Medical Center in Long Beach. He was previously Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer there, and President of the University of Pittsburgh's Horizon Hospital. Joel Serves on the Board of the Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce and the Hospital Association of Southern California. He and his family live in Long Beach in District 5.

Mary Stephens

Mary Stephens is the Vice President for Administration and Finance at California State University, Long Beach. She was previously Vice President for Business and Finance at Cal State Stanislaus, and Executive Project Manager at Cal State Channel Islands. Mary serves on the Board of Directors for the Downtown Long Beach Associates. [Ed. note: Ms. Stephens is among Non-Voting Advisors to the Board.] She holds an MBA from the University of California, Los Angeles. Mary is a resident of downtown Long Beach and lives in District 1.

Steven Neal

Steve Neal serves as Civic Engagement Advocate at Molina Healthcare. Steve is also a minister, and served North Long Beach as District Nine Councilmember on the Long Beach City Council. He is a former board member of the Southern California Association of Governments, the Pacific Gateway Workforce Investment Board and the Long Beach Freedom Schools program. He currently serves as a board member to the Los Angeles chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC). Steve lives in Long Beach in District 9.

Judy Ross

Judy Ross was the longtime Executive Director of the Long Beach Nonprofit Partnership before retiring in 2014. She previously worked for the United Way, and in the Long Beach Department of Health and Human Services as the agency's first director for the Tobacco Education Program. Judy is past President of the Junior League in Long Beach and served on the Long Beach City College Foundation Board. She holds a Master's Degree in Social Work and lives in Long Beach in District 3.

Advertisement

Advertisement

At its Feb. 23, 2016 meeting, the Council also voted (8-0, Austin absent) to show voters the following ballot title and text for the sales tax increase to 10% (currently 9% in Lakewood/Signal Hill, 8% in most OC cities.)

[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" -- in the ballot text, and not including specific uses in the tax measure itself, the Council made it a "general tax" that it and future Councils can spend on any general fund items.

Advertisement

Advertisement

The Council also adopted a Resolution -- which isn;t legally binding on itself or future Councils -- reciting Councilmembers' "intent" as follows:

Section 2. Priorities for Spending TUT Revenue. The City Council hereby expresses its intent, if the TUT is enacted by the voters, to prioritize spending of future TUT revenue for the following purposes:

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 waterlstorm drain systems.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Section 3 of the Resolution specifies that the measure isn't a special tax providing legally binding guarantees of spending on specific items which requires 2/3 voter approval under Props 13/218.

Section 3. TUT Not Deemed a Special Tax. 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.

And under Measure A, nothing prevents the Mayor and Council from using Measure A for promised purposes but simultaneously diverting current spending to other items including city employee pay raises in new contracts now being negotiated.