City Council - Regular Meeting

. . . .

It is 10 o'clock, and it's time for the council meeting session. We have Mr. Sikowsky, Mr. Pacheco, Mr. Padilla, and Mr. Eugene Thomas.

We have five members present, and we apply for a panel. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

It is 10 minutes after 10. We have Mrs. Chick, Ms. Goldberg, Ms. Mislachowski, Mr. Pacheco, Mr. Padilla, Mr. Ridley-Thomas. We have eight members, seven members present. We need three for a quorum. Sergeant, would you go to remind those members that the council is in session?

Oh, Connor. We're going to have a stand. We're going to have a stand.

Mr. Bernson, Ms. Galanter, Mr. Hernandez, Mr. Holden, Mr. Gleitch, Mr. Wax, Mr. Bernson is here, we have nine members. We need one for a quorum. Walden, Walden This is a meeting of the City Council for the City of Los Angeles on the seventh day of September 1999. There are 15 council districts in the city. The regular meeting days are Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. We are currently being viewed by cable subscribers throughout the Los Angeles area on channel 35, and we're also being monitored by council phone. The first order of business.

Approval of the minutes.

All right. Ms. Sikowsky second. If there's no objection, unanimous vote. Next item.

Commendatory resolutions for approval.

If there's no objection, unanimous vote.

Salute to the flag.

Members of the council, as is customary, on the first meeting of the month, we pledge our allegiance to the flag. And if you will remain standing, we will have Reverend Will Terrell of the pastor of San Odileus Church, representing the Los Angeles interfaith community and the Catholic community of Los Angeles. Would everyone please stand? And Ms. Misakowski, would you lead us in the pledge of allegiance?

Place your hand over your heart. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Reverend Terrell.

Let us pray. Almighty God, we thank you for this good land which you have given us for our inheritance. May we prove ourselves a people worthy of your blessing and glad to do your will, quick to understand and forgive, slow to berate and discredit. Bless our city of Los Angeles with meaningful work, sound education, and mutual respect. Save us from violence, discord, and confusion, from pride, greed, falsehood, and arrogance, and every kind of discrimination, oppression, hate, and racism. Help us preserve and increase our liberties and responsibilities as citizens of this city. Grant that we may recognize and honor the uniqueness of each group of people that enriches our culture, reconciling differences, appreciating diversity. Fill with the spirit of wisdom those to whom we entrust the authority of government, that these our public servants seek first the interest of the poor, neglected, silenced, and powerless. That there may be justice and peace in our city, rehabilitation and re-education rather than simple incarceration. Programs for our children and youth that call parents to account and that produce members of our society who are productive and creative. Let the City of Angels be a house of refuge for the immigrant, a place of economic justice and equal opportunity, and an environmental haven for all God's creatures. In times of prosperity, fill our hearts with thankfulness and a spirit of giving. And in days of trouble, do not allow our trust in humanity or in you to fail. O God, grant that what we say with our lips, we may believe in our hearts and practice in our lives to the glory of your most holy name. Amen. Thank you. It was my pleasure.

Reverend, thank you very much. Next item. Item number 37, a request to have that item withdrawn from the agenda referred to the Budget and Finance Committee.

If there's no objection, unanimous vote.

Item 39, a request that this matter be continued until September 28th.

If there's no objection, unanimous vote.

Item number 7, appointment of Susan Estrich to the Ethics Commission.

This is a new appointment of Susan Estrick to the Ethics Commission. She has a distinction of living in the 4th District. Can I have number 4 to continue for a week, Mr. President? Wait a minute. We're on item number 7 right now. Any discussion? If not, prepare the roll. Mr. Holden?

Mr. Estrich, I know of your background and your commitment to public service, but you are going to be serving on the commission that's what I consider to be police operation, one in which they really police government to make it more responsive and certainly make it more honest, Ethics Commission. people the standards are set by the voters of this city and of course everyone who take the oath of office expect to be ethical and to serve in that manner but the presumption should not be that people who take the oath of office and just because they elected to serve that they are by that fact considered to be dishonest And therefore, they have to prove that they are what they are supposed to be, people of the highest ethical standards. So I've heard you say in the paper when you were nominated what you intend to do when you get here in terms of your toughness, et cetera. I don't remember all the words, but I do remember what you said. I have some idea. But I took it from that statement that, well, there are a bunch of bad people over there, and I'm going to go over and straighten them out. Well, then I just want you to know that that's the way it came across to me. There are those who have served in that position, who have taken the position that I've stated, that these are bad people here. And they are not. I think you have enough rules and regulations already to keep government clean, I'm going to just let you know right now, I'm not voting for any more. Okay? Because there's nothing more than entrapments and loopholes as far as I'm concerned. I would say to you that there's a matter coming before us that's been voted by the commission that says that if a contractor responds to an RFP, And I'm going to repeat that. If a contractor responds to an RFP and have given a contribution to any member of the council, mind that I'm not running for re-election, they have to disclose that to suggest that even if they win the contract, there's something sinister, dishonest about their response to the contract. I think the implication is awful. I think the press would use it to tear up any good person who responded to an RFP. And then the persons who got a contract for less than $25,000, which is a lot of them, don't have to do that. And they can be appointed. They can just be given the contract. I think something is wrong about that attempt. And I let you know that I intend to vote no on it when it comes here, if it comes here while I'm present. I think it's wrong. And I think it just gives the wrong implication. And maybe you haven't seen it yet. You probably won't see it. Then you ought to ask for reconsideration before the commission again.

Thank you, Mr. Holden. Thank you. Prepare the roll on item number seven. Tabulate the vote.

Eleven ayes.

Susan, you've been confirmed by the city council and you've been inaugurated by, initiated by Nate Holden, so everything is perfect.

Thank you, Mr. Holden.

The next item. I request that item number four be continued until one week until 9-14.

If there's no objections, unanimous vote. Next item.

Item number eight is a commission appointment. Ms. Pam Emerson to the Ethics Commission.

Pam Emerson. Thank you. Okay. The message that Mr. Holden delivered is his second speech, so we don't have to hear him again. Any discussion on this? If not, prepare the roll. Tabulate the vote.

13 ayes.

Pam, you've been confirmed. Thank you for serving the city. Forthwith on that. Next item.

Item number nine is reappointment of Arpi Adzikian to the Disabled Access Appeals Commission.

Is there any discussion on this appointment? If not, prepare the roll. Tabulate the vote.

13 ayes.

Happy you've been approved. Confirm. We want to thank you for serving the city. Thank you. Forthwith on that item. Next item.

Item number 10 is Commission Appointment. Karen Henderson wins to the Commission on Disability.

Is there any discussion on this appointment?

Karen Henderson wins.

If not, prepare the roll. Tabulate the vote.

13 ayes.

Karen, you've been confirmed. Thank you for serving. Forthwith on that. Next item.

Item number 26 on the regular agenda is the appointment of Stewart on to the Affordable Housing Commission.

Stewart? Any discussion on this appointment? If not, prepare the roll. Tabulate the vote.

13 ayes.

Stewart, you've been confirmed. Thank you for serving the city. Thank you. Forthwith on that item. Next item.

Item numbers one through five on the regular agenda are items which have been noticed for public hearings.

We have cards on number one. We'll call that special. Anybody want to be heard on two, three, or five? Seeing none, the public hearing is closed. Any discussion on those items? If not, prepare the roll on two, three, and five. Tabulate the vote.

13 ayes.

Those are approved. Item number one, we have Bill Powers that wants to be heard. Take the other microphone, would you, Bill?

Thank you, members of the council and Mr. President. We're here today, the Chatsworth Chamber of Commerce, to support the BID, which is number one on the Agenda we've worked almost three years on this and we feel very good about it. We think it's going to Greatly enhance our community. We want to thank Hal Bernson for his support and other members of the council as well Okay, Dick Pearson

Thank you Mr. President, members of the council. I'm here as interim chairman of the Business Improvement District Formation Committee. I'm here to urge passage of the Business Improvement District Ordinance for Chatsworth. As Bill said, we've been working on this for three years. Our motives are simple. After the earthquake, we lost a good deal of our retail businesses. We had 37 vacant stores in a two-mile district shortly after the earthquake. Today we have 30 still. So our business improvement district is really necessary to help our business people get command of what's happening and organize and present some programs that will help us bring our vitality back to our business district. Thank you.

Thank you. Leonard Shapiro.

Mr. President and council members, I rise in general to speak on BIDs, what they've done in this city and what they hope to do. One of the biggest things I find wrong with them is that there's no follow-up reports. They immediately take the $25,000 that's available for bureaucrats, set up a committee, the committee says you need a BID, then they do the work that the Chamber of Commerce in the area should have been doing in the first place. Plant trees, plant grass, make the place, clean it up, make the place more secure and so forth. I was a member of the Chamber of Commerce for many years. I was president for two years. And I know what the Chamber should be doing. The Chamber should be doing. They shouldn't be coming to the City Council as a rule and say, I want a BID, I want a business improvement district, because the Chamber finds it too tough to do the area, to do the job that's necessary. In this Chatsworth area, we have an example of a $3.5 million structure going up there in the Madrid Theater. And it's not used as much as it should be used because it's located poorly. But the point is it's there and it should be used. And why isn't the business community using it more than they are using it? Difficult to get any information about that. I say again, we don't need any BIDs if they're just going to set up more bureaucracies to have people do nothing and say they're going to do a big thing. Mr. President.

Thank you. Mr. Brinson.

I think Mr. Shapiro's got his directions mixed up a little bit. The Madrid Theater is in Canoga Park. But that's not unusual for Mr. Shapiro. But anyway, members of the council, the Chatsworth community has worked very hard to try to pull this community back together after the disaster we had with the earthquake, and they deserve the support. They've got a good bunch of people there who are working very hard and trying very hard, and they need a little support, and I support their efforts, and I would urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Okay.

Any other discussion?

If not, we have item number one before us. Prepare the roll. Tabulate the vote.

14 ayes.

That is approved. We'll send that forthwith. Next item.

Items number 6 and 11 through 25 on the regular agenda or items for which public hearings have been held.

Are there any specials by council members?

Yes. Item number 11.

I have a question. Item number 11 is called special by Mrs. Walters. Any other specials? 19. 19 is called special by Mr. Hernandez. Any others? 22? 22 is called special. Any other specials? If not, prepare the roll on 6, 12 through 18, 20 and 21, and 23 through 25. Tabulate the vote. 14 ayes. Those are approved. Forthwith on number 6.

Next item. Items number 27 through 47, with the exception of 37 and 39, which have already been acted on.

OK, wait. Let's see if there's any public hearings. We have cards on 32, 44, and 45. Anybody want to be heard on any of the other items? 35. You're not anybody. You're a council member. Anybody want to be heard on any of the other items? If not, the public hearing is closed. Any specials by my colleagues now?

Can I have number 40 continued for a week, Mr. President? Which one? Number 40 continued for a week.

There's no objections. 40 will be continued one week. Mr. Bernson?

35 is special.

35 is called special by Mr. Bernson. Any others? 27, 45 is called special already. 27, is that all, Mr. Wax? Okay, let's see. We have 31 is called special. Mr. President.

Mrs. Walters.

I'd like to ask for reconsideration of number 37 for the purpose of including it in this vote.

The purpose of including it in what?

In this vote. I don't want it continued any longer.

Who asked it to be continued?

I did.

You did?

Yes.

Okay, then we'll reconsider 37 so it'll be part of the, be on the agenda. So we have, we have 28... through 30, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42, 43, 46, and 47. Tabulate the vote. Those are approved. Fourth with on which one? We call that special. We have a card on it. Okay. The next item.

Item number 11 called special.

Mrs. Walters, you call 11 special.

Yes, Mr. President, I did, and I called it special for purposes of inquiring of staff as to why this is exempt. We seem to be coming up with more and more exempt positions, and I don't know what about this position, event services manager for the convention center, has to be exempt.

Bill, you want to?

I'm here to speak to the salary. I think as far as the rationale for exempting this position, it would probably be best presented by the convention center staff.

Do we have them here today?

Is there somebody from this convention staff here?

Doesn't the personnel department do this?

he's no longer alone i know i think it came had to come through while you were there yes it did at that time that the planet at that time the convention center com met with the personnel department staff instead that because unique duties responsibilities of this position they felt the best that they can bring someone in from the outside the department the personal part work closely with the convention center staff uh... in terms of developing the rationale and uh... information to support this request as it was smith uh... to the personnel committee and and now wasn't possible to have a civil service exam that is open to people from the outside as well as open to people from the inside uh... if it's outside talented they're looking for It could be structured, but it's very difficult to go to the open list before a promotional list. It still takes a special action by the Board of Civil Service Commissioners to access the outside list. And so it's not a given. It's not an automatic process to just open it up to both open and promotional candidates.

well uh... mister president council members we're seeing more and more of these items coming through exempt from civil service and now i'm really very disturbed about that and i would ask the personnel committee to please pay particular attention uh... to these things as they come through

Mr. Hernandez?

Yes, and I just wanted to rise. In discussion of the development of this position, and again, I know Mr. Fujioka was here on the salary question, is this going to be more of a parking manager than an event coordinator, or is it an event coordinator parking manager?

The primary focus is on event coordination, but the person will have some responsibility for parking. But again, the primary focus is on the coordination of events.

And you're saying that at this time the Convention Center hasn't had anybody who coordinates events?

They have had staff, but they felt that because of the expansion of duties related to this position that they're best served by opening it up. Mind you that existing staff can still qualify or compete for this position. They felt that by exempting the position they can open it up to a broader universe and bring in hopefully a highly qualified person for this function.

Uh-huh. And so their primary function is going to be event coordination.

That's my understanding.

And so then you'll be looking for a person to coordinate events, and it has nothing to do with an increased need to coordinate parking because of the competition with the Staples Center for parking spots.

I don't know the answer to that question.

Okay. Here comes someone else. Maybe they do have the answer. Give them the answer real quick.

There will be some parking coordination associated with the position as well. Could you speak into the microphone, please? We'll be responsible for coordinating with the Staples Center as well. That's part of the responsibility of the position.

You know, members of the council, I think that we're all becoming more and more aware that the Staples Center is going to be a parking mess. And my understanding is that part of the certificate of occupancy it's going to take approval of a parking plan as well as a traffic plan by this council and maybe mr. Deaton can answer that question but I wanted to make sure we became aware that right now We have a responsibility to deal with the parking issues that are going to happen because of the Staples Center. And I think the Staples Center is just assuming they're going to be able to use a lot of the convention center parking spots. I'm concerned about the auto show and the needs of the convention center because when we were talking about the development of the Staples Center, we were basically, it was represented to us by staff that that wouldn't be a problem. but now as i read articles and so forth obviously parking is a major issue that has to be dealt with and i'm trying to find out of this position would be able to alleviate that in some way and uh... if that's part of the rationale for us to try to seek outside assistance uh... mr deacon do you know where the parking plans are with the staples center

I'm not sure of the connection between this position and parking. The parking issue for the arena will be coming to council in the next few weeks. The original plan ensumed that the 1,500 parking slots in the West Hall would be used for the arena Lakers and Kings Knights we have been working with the arena relative to There's some modifications those modifications to that whole plan will be coming to council as I said in a couple weeks the both the arena and the auto show have partly through my office been Discussing issues, and I think there's one potential conflict in this upcoming year, but however it's a Clippers game, not a Lakers or Kings game, and we believe there's enough parking within the arena parking to take care of that and not have a problem with the auto show on that one afternoon.

But it will be coming forth shortly.

Your time has expired, Mr. Navis.

If I could just ask one more question, I won't have to push my button again, or else I'll push my button again. Oh, that's a question. Okay, thank you. But this position that we're asking for, an exempt position, is there anybody else who's going to have parking responsibilities at the Convention Center? Now, I'm saying that because I chair the Economic Development Committee, and the Convention Center is part of our oversight. And at no time did this position go through that committee. And I'm hearing it's a new appointment. So what I'd like to do is schedule it for our next committee meeting so that we can have a little bit more detailed discussion and then bring it back to council. Is there any reason why we can't do that?

Is there any reason why we can't do that? His time is up, and so let's... Okay, no, hold in a second. All right, Ms. Goldberg.

The issues being raised, including the initial one about exempt positions are good ones. The problem we're having in personnel is very simple. Under the new charter, there are a lot more positions that are allowed to be exempted. And the criteria are a lot fuzzier. So in order for us to come out and say, no, I'm trying to find a methodology by which we can do that and we're doing that in some cases but it is a lot more difficult now and I think we all need to be aware of that's the problem. This particular position as I recall is a one-of-a-kind and even under the old charter would have met the criteria because a lot of one-of-a-kind positions are exempted because exam processes for one for a single person position are frequently not very useful and that's the difference between exempt and civil service. We do require and take them through a litany of questions that require that they must use a process that even though that civil service is competitive and is based on merit and not based on you know a casual concern for for who they might want to select having someone in mind before they come. But it is a real dilemma, and I appreciate the suggestion from the first speaker that the personnel committee watch this closely. I can assure you we will, but I'm not sure exactly what the grounds on which we would have for denying some of these, particularly those like this one, which happened to have met the criteria even of the old charter. But on the new charter, there is a lot larger number of exempt positions both at the management level and at the professional expertise level that are permitted than we currently have. I think it almost doubles.

Mr. Bernson? Well, aside from the parking problems, obviously one of the things that you need in a center such as Staples and the Convention Center is you need somebody who's scheduling events who is innovative and able to get the job done. And in such a position really demands to be non-civil service or exempt because if the party doesn't perform, you need to be able to make that change. It's just as simple as that. We're talking about a lot of dollars. We're talking about big impact on the city's general fund and revenue. So if ever there is a position that should be exempt, this certainly is one. So I would urge an aye vote on this. All right, Mr. Holden.

I will vote aye. But I agree with Mr. Hernandez. If he wishes to have it heard before his committee, Mr. Hernandez, then I will support that. I mean, I think it's just a courtesy, and that request should be granted if that's what he wants, and then bring it back to us post-haste. But I will say, Mr. President, members, that this is just the beginning of the questions that need to be solved, asked, and answered. that will come before us regarding the Staples Center. Mindful of the fact that the traffic impact is going to be horrendous, one that we will never be able to solve. You're talking about coordinating parking arrangements. Well, at the convention center, compared to the sports arena, there's going to be over 300 events per year. And, of course, that virtually puts the Convention Center out of business. And we have a $1.2 billion debt with the Convention Center that we won't have to pay. We can't pay off then. And that gap financing will come from the general fund. And I'll repeat, that gap financing will come from the general fund. I mean, I never knew that was going to happen, but it looks like it's heading in that direction. My three minutes are not up, Ms. President. I've got a minute and a half. And so what I want to say is that... We are going to need a coordinator to make sure that the benefits side on the side of the convention center when it comes to parking because we have to really have as many events there as we possibly can to make sure that it's a signed program for us. I tell you that as an example for parking, Mr. President, in Washington, D.C., where they have the newer center, new arena, the people who work in the area have to go home early because their parking spaces are given to the people attending the game, and, you know, kind of shut down over there. And I can't see us doing anything but shutting down here, too. But, you know, time will tell. But I will support Mr. Hernandez's request.

I know that you won't be attending the Staples Center, so there will be one less car.

Mr. Chairman, my time is still on. And seeing as believing, I'd have to see it in order to know that it's there.

Mrs. Walters?

Thank you, Mr. President. I just couldn't resist council members saying that some of us told you so, but everybody was rushing to approve this contract and have the Staples Center there without asking too many questions. So I hope we won't do that again.

Mr. Hernandez?

I just rise to ask for support that it be sent to committee. Apparently there's no reason why. And I'll hear it at the next committee meeting and bring it back to council.

You want the whole thing to go to your committee?

The position, the exempt position. Okay.

All right. Is there any objections to referring this to Mr. Hernandez's committee? And we'll be back in a week, did you say?

When's my next committee meeting, David? The 13th. The 13th. This will be the week right after 13th, next week.

Okay. Okay. So we can do it on the 14th?

You can schedule it for the 14th. All right.

If there's no objections, that will be the order on 9 Baruch.

And if we could request that convention center staff show up at the 13th meeting, that way we could discuss it in detail. Okay.

Okay, that is item number 11. The next item?

Item number 19 called special.

Mr. Hernandez, you called 19 special?

Yes, I did. And this is kind of related to, I don't know if there's someone here from LAPD. uh... this is for a special funding about sixty five thousand dollars that we're getting reimbursed by the state for a special line called the ask l a p d uh... i noticed that an item six that we passed today uh... we basically set aside a million point four for the development of the three one one system which both be an alternate line for the public to call non-emergency

uh... questions and responses does this promotional campaign have anything to do with it i know it does not i'm linda bunker from los angeles police department actually there are three separate things that are going on here we have three one one that is going to be looked at as a citywide service to get better access to city service we have ask l a p d which is going to be a universal non-emergency number for police services and then you have the actual nine one one and this money is going to be used for the nine one one campaign to make sure that people understand when to use nine one one and when not to and also that there is now another number that they're going to be able to use to get non-emergency service for police uh... all right so so we're going to be asking people to learn to dial ask l a p d for non-emergency nine one one service yes okay and that's what i was trying to clarify right uh...

Because I also know we'll be spending some money on the promotional campaign of 311.

That is correct.

And basically, this campaign is basically to relieve the 911 system of non-emergency calls.

That is correct.

And a lot of the calling, a lot of the education, is it going to be happening when people make those false 911 calls?

Maybe I don't understand your question.

If you call 911 and say I'm trying to find out where to report my lost dog, is someone going to tell them you're not supposed to dial 911 and you're supposed to dial another number?

usually we do that and we get them another number transfer them to a non-emergency number but we're hoping that through the campaign that they will know to come in through ask LAPD where they will get better service and know where to contact without having to be transferred and is this campaign also going to have a focus on youth

When I ask that question, we know that our 911 calls go up when kids get out of school.

I think it's going to focus everywhere. Everywhere? I think this is, yes.

Okay. Okay, thank you. I just wanted to ask those questions.

Thank you.

Mr. Fuhrer.

Move the question.

Move the question.

Okay, we have item number 19 before us. Prepare the roll. Tabulate the vote.

14 ayes.

That is approved. Next item.

Item 22, called special by Council Member Goldberg.

Ms. Goldberg, item 22.

Yes, I'd just like to refer item 22. Well, it's the last item on the list, 970600S6, back to committee. Thank you. uh... for its consideration this is uh... an issue that is not going to go away uh... involves the productivity and uh... quality and productivity commission uh... unfortunately uh... the last couple of years they've had uh... difficulty getting their item before the budget committee because of the numbers of things to do so rather than wait again to try to do it before the budget committee at the end maybe it could go first quality and productivity and then uh... be held for the Budget Committee during the budget hearings. But at some point or another, the issue has to be addressed rather than us just putting in motions and then waiting until motions get real old and then throwing them away. So I'd like to have... You wanted to send that item to... To the Government and Efficiency Committee.

Okay. If there's no objections, the 97.0600 will be referred to the government efficiency, and the balance will be to receive and file.

Thank you.

Prepare the roll on the balance. Tabulate the vote.

14 ayes.

That is approved. Next item.

Item 27, call special by Council Member Wax.

Mr. Wax.

I'd like to have an explanation of exactly what's involved.

Is there somebody here on item number 27? It's an MOU between the Department of Water and Power. Would you give your name, please?

Yes, Mark Howard for the Department of Water and Power. I guess I'll just sort of hit the highlights here. are what we normally call inequities, and some of these have rolled over and finally been settled now. And when they were first raised, they go back as far as 1996 MOU negotiations. We have item number one, senior underground distribution construction supervisor. This class, the man who is sitting in this position recently received a footnote by council ordinance, and that put him above a cutoff level that would make him a salaried employee. However, there are already 13 classes similar to his own that are necessary to maintain electricity to the citizens of Los Angeles. And for that reason, we are asking to exempt him from being salaried as those other 13 classes were. Item number two, street tree superintendent. This item came about nearly as a fluke of timing. This position was never used at the department before. And before this gentleman's position was accreted to our management employees union, he missed a COLA. He missed the October 97 COLA of 2.1% that was given to all of their employees. So we're merely asking to catch him up on that. Number three is investment officer. This will affect one employee. Recently, similar positions at the city were given between 5.5% and 12.1% raises. We are merely asking to keep this gentleman in that same range and giving him a 10.7% raise. senior communications electrician supervisor. This will affect two employees. As a result of our downsizing program in 1998 and reorganization of this business unit, these gentlemen took on the duties of senior power engineers and for that reason their duties greatly expanded and we're asking to give them the pay that would match those expanded duties. Last of all, we have the General Electrical Mechanics Supervisor. With the death of an incumbent, one gentleman took over those duties, and we're merely asking to pay him at the pay level that the prior incumbent was at, which is a transportation and distribution superintendent A-level.

Thank you. Mr. Wax? Ms. Goldberg?

These were the ends of lots of pieces of the MOU, or several MOUs actually. We went through, I don't know how many requests, there were dozens of them. And selected with the assistance of the department's management, only those which they felt were absolutely essential. And you can see that the dollar amount for all of the changes, which were very few compared to those submitted, comes out to about $60,000, I believe. And I don't have it in front of me, but it was less than $100,000. So these are small changes, but they are a part of the larger picture, which is to try and to change how a system which had not had to compete in the open market is going to gear up to be able to compete in the open market, and some of that involves some changes in what people do, and those changes are related in this particular small set of extra items that are going to be added to the MOU, and I urge an adoption of the report.

Twenty-seven, prepare the roll, tabulate the vote.

14 ayes.

That is approved. We'll send that forthwith.

I'd like to move to reconsider 41D, which was passed earlier for the purpose of receiving and filing it since the event never took place and is not rescheduled.

Okay, if there's no objections, 41D is reconsidered. Seeing none, the matter is before us. Ms. Goldberg moves it be received and filed. There are no objections. That will be the order. Next item.

Item 31 called special by Council Member Wax.

Mr. Wax. I've gotten the information that I need, so unless anyone else wishes to discuss the subject, I think I could just note and file it.

Okay. If there's any further discussion, if not, prepare the roll. Tabulate the vote.

14 ayes.

That is approved. Next item. Item 32.

Leonard Shapiro.

Mr. President and council members, item 32 concerns a restoration of the contract compliance program manager in the CCP and the Bureau of Contract Administration. And in this connection, I'd just like to give the council the benefit sum of advice that I've been receiving over the past months from a whistleblower who just retired from this department contractor administration after 30 years with the city. And the points that I'd like to raise, I raised before, but I just want to let you know. Like right now, it's important that the city review its fee structure because the mayor made a The Mayor Executive Order Number 12 mandates that a review must take place annually, checking the records of the Bureau of Engineering. We find the annual updating and cost has not taken place since April 1992. Now, how can you collect the money that's due to come back in here if you don't even update your records because your costs are going up and the people are getting the benefit of the fact that somebody is too lazy? Also, there's another point that was raised with me, that as of January 31st, 1999, there was $133 million in uncollectible money. And it was basically uncollectible because the people who were in charge of overseeing these contracts were not doing their job properly, they were not being billed on time, they weren't being billed at all in most cases, they weren't being billed on time, they were being billed improperly, and they were being billed at the wrong rate, and it was allowed to go along, and eventually this money gets written off. Where can the city council and the mayor's office allow $133 million to be lost? By the way, the lack of the updating on the part of the department adds up to $6.5 million a year. Now, when you're spending money so loosely, how come nobody wants to take a look at all these problems that exist in the Department of Engineering, the Department of Contract Administration, and the rest of the Department of Public Works? Because understand, these things are happening, and I have documents that high to prove everything that I'm saying right here, and there's a lot more stuff that I... There's a lot more stuff that you've got to keep in mind. Maybe this appointment of this new job will allow you to correct things a little bit, a little bit. Thank you, Mr. Shapiro. But believe me, it won't touch the main problem.

Thank you. Mrs. Walters.

Thank you, Mr. President. I was wondering if Mr. Gilpin, who's head of this organization, is here today. I don't see him. Could we hold it on the desk and ask him to come over? I have some questions I'd like to ask.

Okay. Please. Item 32 will lay on the desk, and in the meantime, call for Mr. Gilpin. Next item.

Item 35, called special by Councilmember Bernson.

Mr. Bernson.

Yes, members of the council, this item went to committee and was sent back with a receiving file. but actually what we asked for was uh... in response to a letter from one of our constituents that uh... had switched over from uh... southern california edison on the lifeline rates and according to uh... the constituent the uh... uh... southern california edison was was uh... offering a greater discount than we do with the w p and i wonder If somebody from Department of Water and Power is here and they can respond to that, have we adjusted our lifeline rates to be competitive?

uh... good morning i went for dancing from the department of water and power and yes as of july tickets mid july july fifteen to sixteen our board did we do our low-income maximum income rate so they are now uh... competitive and uh... we are we are uh... going by the same rate that all of our neighboring utilities use which was uh... mandated but not mandated but suggested by the public utilities commission okay very good thank you very much

And actually, our rates are lower than the Edison.

Our regular residential rates are lower. Okay. All right, prepare the roll on 35. Tabulate the vote.

14 ayes. That is approved. Next item.

Item number 44, called special.

Richard Robinson.

Mr. President, members of council, I pay $42 a month for a bus pass. If the rate increases, it's really a disadvantage. Thank you. Leonard Shapiro.

Members of the council, this item number 44 concerns the 4 cent fare increase that's being proposed by the MTA for the bus riders of the city of LA. And this is a motion to oppose the 10 cent fare increase, which I agree with. There is no reason why the burden of operating the buses in the city of LA should fall upon the heads of those who are least able to pay, the poor people. They don't have lobbyists. They don't have consultants. They can't come here. They can't make their views heard so that the MTA can go ahead very easily and do that. The MTA, everybody knows who can read the papers or has anything to do with what's happening down there knows due to waste and incompetence and worse has blown billions of dollars. Now they are under a consent decree where they have to provide bus service which should have been the first prerequisite anyhow. They are trying to do this, and they find out that they can't do this, so boom, let's raise the rates. Let's let the bus riders pay further. I think that it's well in order that the waste and incompetence that the MTA exhibited over the years, it should be taken into consideration and say, you can't dump it all upon those least able to pay. And I agree with this motion to oppose this $0.10 fare increase. Mr. President.

The public hearing is closed. Mr. Brinson?

Well, I'm glad that Mr. Shapiro has become such an expert on transportation now. We welcome him into the fold. But I just want to say that I do support the motion, and MTA has not acted on this. In fact, it's been a request of the staff, but has been delayed several times by the board itself, waiting for a report to come in that shows what the impact of this would be and what the actual need would be. I just want to, just for the benefit of those who heard that tirade, I don't think that you need to look at the current board as being the perpetrators of what's happened through the past years. In fact, the MTA has made a dramatic turnaround. Unfortunately, we are operating under a consent decree that was ill-advised. and we have to make the best of it. But the organization is making a very good effort to operate, and we're trying to keep the rates in line, and hopefully we'll be able to do so, and I'm prepared to support the motion. But I think we should recognize the fact that there's no such thing as a free lunch. Anything that operates beyond the fare box recovery is supported by taxpayer dollars, and that includes ours, yours, and everybody's. Ms. Kohlberg?

Yes, it's always a dilemma because there are shortfalls at the agency. But I do believe, and I think that most people would agree in this city, that the transit dependent are the working poor of Los Angeles. And as such, for them, the small change that we would consider this 10 cents represents and then the subsequent increase in the fares also for bus passes is a phenomenal change to a person whose livelihood depends on them being able to get to work using public transportation, not an easy task at any price. I just think that this council ought to go on record in urging. We have representatives of our own members sitting here and there. We need to urge them, I think, publicly, as well as the board as a whole, not to make up its shortfall this way. There are other things. I believe things will have to be cut. It's not like I think they have enough money. But I do not believe the place that you put this burden on are the people who are the lowest income members of the Los Angeles society. and that is the people basically who ride the bus. So I would urge an aye vote on the motion.

Mr. Holden?

Mr. President, members, I'm going to vote for the motion, but we are not there. Mr. Bernson is, and he's got to deal with the financial crisis, which exists from time to time in that area, as we do here. If we take from one part of the budget, we've got to give to another. And once you're demanding more buses, new buses, where's the money going to come from? There's no more Proposition A or Proposition C. That amount of money is fixed already. You've got the federal government giving less, the state's giving less, and yet the ridership is up, demanding more buses. We cut down on and the heavy rail system that's been frozen in place, we cannot give the impression to the general population and the public that we can provide everything for them that they need and it's not going to cost more. I think if this motion were saying use every restraint, then you're giving some consideration to other elected officials as well. But use every restraint within your influence to keep the bus fares at the current level, that's one thing. But to say that you're opposed, are you going to fill the gap? I don't think so. You're going to tell them where they can find the money? I don't think so. You don't even know. They don't know. But I'm sure they're going to try and work it out. Many of them are just as conscientious as we are. And to pass this motion to suggest that we are more concerned about the bus riders than the people who are elected, certainly the five members of the Board of Supervisors and others, is not the impression I think we ought to leave. That's not the impression that we want to convey today. I mean, we still have to work with these people on other issues. So I would say that while I'm voting for this motion, I want the members of the board who are elected and those who are appointed that we understand the problems that they face as well. There's a tremendous demand with the consent decree to provide for additional new buses, which we've done. At the same time, to keep the ridership up and keep the prices fixed in place. So it's almost like trying to increase the defense spending and balance the budget. We know a guy who tried to say that to us once, too, and the deficit went up a trillion dollars. So they have to balance their budget and there's no gap financing there. I'll vote for it, but you have my views.

Yeah, we needed those. Mr. Fuhrer.

Thank you, Mr. President. If you are a recipient of Social Security, your cost of living increase this year pales in comparison to the 8.5 percent increase for senior citizens to ride the bus. If you're an SSI recipient, your negligible cost-living increase pales by comparison to a similar percent increase for the monthly bus pass. I appreciated Mr. Bernson stating his support for the core of this motion. He is a key conduit for this council and a key figure on that MTA board. And I think Ms. Goldberg in her statements has it right that in view of the fact that the riders who are most dependent on transit have received in the main such negligible costly increases in their own monthly revenue to ask them to devote a substantial increase to this core element of living in the city isn't fair it's not fair when buses pass by riders on a daily basis because they're overcrowded and no one else can fit it's not fair when riders are required to stand on buses for half an hour an hour or more at a time It's not fair when there are no transit shelters in major sectors of this city in which people reside and rely on public transit every day. This is the wrong way to deal with funding a budget shortfall, and I support the motion.

Okay, prepare the roll on that.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Is this trip necessary?

I was going to ask Mr. Bernson a question. When I was over there at one point, senior citizens got a badge, a $4 a month pass, and they went to $8 a month, and they were not affected by this. What do the senior citizens pay now for a monthly pass, which means you can ride anywhere you want to ride, as often as you want to go?

I don't know what the amount is. It's a low fare. One of the things that's the reason that the board has not acted on this, even though the request was made some time ago, is we're waiting to get back a report on how we can restructure the fare so that we don't put an impact on seniors and low-income transit-dependent riders. Right. So, you know, the fare increase is a long way from past, believe me. And I don't know that there's support for it. But we are looking at restructuring because, frankly, you know, you have to – if you're going to provide service, you've got to have – money to do that and a lot of people don't think that but particularly in light of what the demands have been made by the consent decree and the purchase of these buses if these additional buses are required ultimately that were in the original consent decree not only will there be a need for perhaps more fare increases but also

Probably it will take the funds that have been set aside for our call for projects within our city as well as throughout the county So, you know, we've got a lot riding on what's going on over there right now when this comes back It probably should go to your committee transportation committee, but I will say this when RTD was in operation over there It was four dollars a month for students and seniors they could ride anywhere as often as they wanted to ride for the four dollars and Then I think it went up to $8 a month, and they were not affected by the proposed increases. So I don't know what it is now, but it's just you pay for a month, ride anywhere at any time. Regarding the bus shelters, that was our responsibility. We did not vote for a new contract. We did not demand that the person who got the contract put the bus shelters where they were needed for our seniors, for poor areas. They didn't feel that was a good investment. AND IT WAS NOT MTA BOARD OF DIRECTORS POSITION TO VOTE ON THAT. IT WAS THE CITY COUNCIL'S POSITION TO VOTE ON THAT. AND THEY NEGLECTED TO MAKE THOSE KIND OF DEMANDS ON THE PERSON WHO WON THE CONTRACT, ON THE COMPANY THAT WON THE CONTRACT. WE JUST VOTED ON THAT. I DON'T KNOW IF I DID OR NOT, BUT I DID RAISE THOSE QUESTIONS.

MRS. WALDERS. OKAY. Item 44 before us, prepare the roll. Tabulate the vote.

14 ayes.

That is approved. Next item.

Item 45.

Item 45, we have Leonard Shapiro.

mr president and council members item 45 concerns a motion by laura chick and seconded by john ferraro which I have to agree with. I believe that this motion, in the spirit of the free market driven commerce, enthusiastically support a privately funded professional football team while maintaining our commitment to invest public funds only in civic projects that benefit all Los Angelinos. I think this is a great idea. I think it should be reaffirmed. I think the NFL and any private industry, and this is a private industry that's out to make private profits for themselves should understand that they will not be underwritten by a major city of the size of Los Angeles. If they have to go to small towns, relatively speaking, in Carolina, in Jacksonville, in Tennessee, let them go. Even Houston, let them go. Maybe they're anxious to get a team in there. But as far as I'm concerned, and I am a great football fan, As far as I'm concerned, I do not think public money is well spent on financing stadiums or financing the running of the teams. And specifically, when they tell you to your face, the only reason we want you to finance the parking structures is the fact that our people aren't making enough. Imagine that. They're telling you they're not making enough profit, and therefore they want you to finance the parking structures, whether you do it directly or whether you do it by a hidden method. It's the same thing. You don't want to fool the people on this thing. We do not need to invest money to get professional private teams here in the city of Los Angeles. Mr. President.

Thomas wants to be heard.

John Thomas, Mr. President, members of the Council, I've stood before you in the past, as many of you know, in connection with my work on the Harbor Commission, as a member of the Governing Board of the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority in charge of the financing for that project, and in connection with the Trizek-Han development project, uh... which was the subject matter of votes that you had uh... last year concerning the hollywood highland project uh... and councilmember goldberg's district I am as well the, I and my firm, I should say, are the authors of the financing proposal that has been referenced in the press in an effort to try to resurrect the problems that have been created by the past negotiations with the NFL and also the party who dealt with the proposal in the CLA-CAO report that you have before you, which is the subject matter of what I'd like to say a few words about here today. Preface by saying I and my firm had nothing to do with the project until things blew up about three weeks ago. We, once that happened, developed a financing plan as an alternative to what had been put forth. that we think meets a number of objectives that would really have something in it for everybody. We developed it being very conscious of the limits that the governor was willing to go to to provide public funding. We developed it with a keen eye to concerns that the city council had in past projects, in particular Councilmember Wax with respect to the Staples Arena. uh... we developed it uh... with full respect to concerns of the taxpayers of the state of california who were concerned that their money would go for subsidizing a private stadium uh... in the los angeles area for which they had no interest uh... and that we developed it in consideration of the uh... the needs of the owners on the other side of the lecture i should say uh... going into this uh... here representing nobody in connection with my comments were not retained by anybody uh... and i wanted to just uh... be able to say that the financing plan that we have uh... would allow for the and city to finance public parking garages without having the current general fund exposed in any way, shape, or form. It would be financed strictly by the incremental revenues generated by the project, but for which there would be no such revenues to the city or the state. The city money, as I should say, as an aside, are the minority portion of this. It's some CRA money of the city funds. It's a minimal amount of sales tax and some utility and license fees and perhaps some parking tax, which I've been told would require state legislation.

Okay, you about finished? Just about, Mr. President. I hope so.

Thank you, as always. And I just wanted to say that at the end of the day, the incremental revenues after everything was paid for, and I remind you that These garages would be owned by the state and city. They would be assets, tangible assets. The state and city would receive a very significant amount of surplus revenues after debt service on these garages, which would leave them with a lot of money to spend on things that they could not spend on because that money doesn't exist and won't unless the project is built. I would therefore urge you to respectfully oppose Councilmember Chick's motion. We are in the process of trying to see if a deal can be put together between all parties and passing this motion at this time would send a signal that I think would be detrimental to the efforts being undertaken to try to resolve this in everybody's interest to give a win-win for all sides concerned. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Mrs. Chick, the public hearing is closed.

Yes, thank you, Mr. President. I want to again begin my comments advocating support for my motion by paying deference to my colleague Mark Ridley-Thomas for the time and energy that he has put into working with the NFL. But I cannot agree with attempts to get a football team back to Los Angeles at any public taxpayer expense. I certainly agree that Los Angeles and its Coliseum is the perfect place for an NFL team to play. But whether it's through a complex parking deal, that potentially benefits the state more than the city or whether it's using city staff and expensive outside legal experts to eventually negotiate a deal with the nfl it's still using public dollars and for me this is not only about public dollars It's also based on a firm belief that what we should be spending our time and energy, as well as our dollars on, is fixing what's broken in this city. Finding ways to take care of our infrastructure. Finding ways to improve public constituent services. Finding ways to fix the city's payroll system. and finding ways to collect on the bills that are legitimately owed us and stay uncollected. This resolution before you today does reaffirm the city's desire to have an NFL team play back in Los Angeles, but without using any public funds. And I believe that that is the will of the broader public of this city and certainly of the district that I represent. I believe it's time to send the strong message to the NFL that it's time to stop playing games and play ball in the Coliseum. Thank you.

Mr. Wax.

Mr. Fujioka, late last week... You and Mr. Deaton issued a report that I'm now looking at, and your recommendation is to authorize the negotiators for the new Coliseum partners on behalf of the city to commence discussions with the NFL in an effort to come to an agreement regarding public participation. Who are the negotiators for the new Coliseum partners? Mr. Fujioka, who are the negotiators for the... Mr. Fujioka, who are the negotiators for the new Coliseum partners?

Principally, we have the councilmen as well as negotiators. And then if authorized by this council, it would be our CLA.

Who are the negotiators for the new Coliseum partners?

The other negotiators.

Basically, I believe the negotiators have historically been Latham and Watkins for the new Coliseum Commission partnerships. I want to explain that.

Okay. You don't have to go any further. First, I want to address Mr. Fujioka. You are the chief fiscal officer of this city. And you're recommending that negotiators for the new Coliseum partners, which in the past have been Latham and Watkins and other private people, negotiate on behalf of this city to spend public money. And you don't even know who those people were. This is one of your first tests, Mr. Fujioka. And if you're doing your best, I think that you have really failed. I'm leveling with you. But I don't think that you are doing your best. I think, unfortunately, you are being forced to do someone else's bidding and that bidding is the bidding of a small group of people in city hall who are determined one way or another under whatever way they want to call it to get public money to bring a pro football team to the coliseum and because they know damn well that the people of this city are adamantly opposed to it and want us to support the motion that has been brought forward by my colleague ms chick because they know damn well that the people of this city are opposed to it, it is being done in the same manner that the arena was done, behind closed doors, secretly, without revealing any of the information. Mr. John Thomas comes up here and refers to being the author of a plan of which we have not been able for two weeks, from you, Mr. Deaton, or anyone else, to even be able to obtain a copy of it. You are asking people to vote on something that commits public dollars to a plan you negotiate in private, to a plan you refuse to reveal to anybody. Haven't you learned a lesson? Ron, there's not going to be any last minute negotiations this time to save this deal. This isn't much about processes. It is about policy. Processes, people want things out in the open, and they want to know the truth, and they don't want code words for taxes that, in fact, are just taxes hidden. And they want this deal out in the open, and they don't want to spend their money without their approval because they have values which place books in schools and police officers on the streets ahead of billionaire owners and millionaire players. And that's just the reality of things. And if you haven't learned the lesson once from the sports arena, you're darn well going to learn it again now.

Miss Galanter.

I'm curious to know why we need to vote on this today. I'm very sympathetic to the sentiment, but it does seem to me that if the negotiations, whatever the negotiations are, are at some critical point and something's going to happen in the next day or two, what would be the problem with postponing this vote, not voting it down, because I don't particularly want to vote it down, and I don't think anyone else does, but simply holding it until there's something real on the table for us to measure against what is proposed in this motion. So can somebody tell me, is there a problem with continuing it for two days or a week?

A motion is always in order to continue.

Well, is there a problem with it before I make this motion?

No. Mr. Deaton? If I might explain our recommendations just for a moment. What this council did the last time it met was ask us to look at two or three other approaches that we've used in the past. One was the Staples Arena, one was Trizicon, and one was DreamWorks. And attached to that is a chart that shows you exactly how those things were financed. And to compare this as best we could with what was being proposed. Mr. Wax, I don't know exactly what the deal is. I do know that the revenues they're talking about are as follows. One is property tax. There is a tax increment in Hoover Redevelopment Agency somewhere between $2 and $4 million due to the possessory interest of building a new stadium. We will not have a new stadium in that arena, in that area, unless they do it there. Therefore, it is very site-specific. It is very comparable to the deal that we made with the arena, $12 million from the CRA for the arena. As it relates to the other sales tax and property parking tax as potential dollars that the city could do, the parking tax is applicable to every place in the city except Exposition Park. There's a state law that prevents it. If that state law was changed and said that we could only use the parking tax in the confines of Exposition Park, that would be as site-specific as possible. as it relates to sales tax which is the next number is roughly two million dollars that is very comparable to the what we did in trizicon i know you didn't support trizicon but it is but it is exactly on target with the proposal we did on trizicon our recommendation and i have to admit after reading again this morning after uh... signing at last week appears that we're turning something over we're not actually what we're actually saying is is that the details i do not necessarily agree with them their numbers i don't necessarily agree that their sites a specific but what we're suggesting is that rather than spend more city time on it and more city staff on it you people who want to put this together, go put a proposal together, show us that it's site-specific. We have outlined what we have done in the past as it relates to two other projects. There are elements that are exactly the same in both of those. We are not involved in negotiations. The governor's office has requested the University of California to look at this proposal. The lion's share of these dollars would have to come from the state, not from us. The Hoover Redevelopment Agency, we have used historically in every part of this city tax increment for benefit of the site or in the area, the redevelopment area, and I see no difference policy-wise than we have in any of the 30-some-odd redevelopment agencies in the city.

So now that he's used all my time, can I ask one more question?

And... I just might point out that there is nothing before us today, there is no deal before us, without the state, I know, I thought I'd get to answering my question, your question, after I was able to express myself. The answer your question is there's nothing before us and there is no proposal from the state at this point Well without the state it doesn't go still my turn.

I think can I just try to finish this off here? so Ron or bill or somebody if Given that there is no deal before us your recommendation Are you making a recommendation or are you just recommending?

We're recommending that the people, the new partnerships, partnership or whatever it is, go out and work it with the state, come back, that in the confines of property tax.

Okay, wait, excuse me. I think I got it now, and I have two more quick questions. So if they were to work something out, Would the council then vote on that if there's a deal in front of us?

Absolutely.

So the deal doesn't go into effect no matter what it says unless we vote it into effect.

That's right. And there is no deal.

Wait, I know that. So the next question is, Mr. Thomas suggested that somehow this was all, I thought he was suggesting this was all going to, come into form out of chaos sometime in the next few days or a week. Do we have any idea what kind of a timetable is feasible?

Mr. Thomas is always optimistic.

I know that, but do you have any? Somebody's got to be.

No, we don't want to get Mr. Thomas in this.

No, no, all I want to know, all right, I'm just trying to decide whether to make a motion here or not, so I'll just wait a little while.

Let me just say that in the arena deal, there was at least 15 last and final offers.

Right.

Okay, Mrs. Walters.

Council members and also staff, my position on this is exactly as it was on the arena in my district. I don't think there ought to be one dime of public money in this. And public money is the time that you folks are spending and you've been at it now for a couple of years it seems in trying to put these varying proposals together. to interest some of these NFL owners in coming to LA, there seems to be, to me, no good reason to support private owners for their private football teams or whatever kinds of teams that are there, uh... the public money it's too scarce needs to go for other things if you go through with this as its plan like this tries a con and i didn't support that uh... either i was not here the day it voted but had i been i would have voted no uh... to take the tax money which is supposed to be the benefit however small or large that these things bring and turn it back inward on paying for the parking provides zero benefit to the city. And I think it's time that we face up to reality and say to these folks you pay your own way. We say to poor people pay your own way. Even on the buses, pay their own way, no matter what the bus cost for them to access it. And we need to say to people who can truly afford this private entrepreneurship to pay their own way. I'm always astonished at people who put so much into private entrepreneurship, and then they have their hands out wanting the public subsidy. And I think they ought to use the private money for their private business and not a public subsidy.

Hernandez.

Mr. President, members of council, I also rise to wholeheartedly support the motion before us. I think that we're confusing a lot of issues here. One of the issues is basically the renovation of the Coliseum. a facility that's already been renovated and earthquake-proofed and basically in an area that's going through tremendous changes because of investments by the state and the reality that it's much more than just a facility for grown men to bang each other around on Sunday afternoons. I believe very strongly that You know, the NFL is making its own decisions and really could care less what the city of Los Angeles thinks. And I think it comes a point when the city of Los Angeles has to tell the NFL that they need to understand that we're getting accustomed to not having a team here. It's their choice to choose to come to Los Angeles, not our choice to go to them. And our reality is they have to make a proposal to us if they want to be part of this great city. If they choose not to, that's their decision. I enjoy UCLA and USC, Mr. President, and the realities are we are much greater than a wannabe city. And I just believe that the NFL wants to come here. I think the real problem is the owners are trying to decide who gets to come to Los Angeles, and they did not want to give us an expansion team. But again, the issue of a football team should be separate from the issue of the Coliseum. And I think right now that our realities are we are not in a position as a city, we don't have anything before us that says we should be investing public funds into the Coliseum. And so as I read the motion that's before us that we've continued on several occasions, the motion is basically telling the NFL if they choose to come to Los Angeles and with a clear understanding that Los Angeles does not want to invest public funds into the purchase of a team or into an enticement of a team. What Los Angeles wants to do is participate if they choose to come here. But right now, my understanding is they're choosing not to, and they want to know what we're willing to put up, and we should send the message we're not going to put up anything.

Mr. Ridley-Thomas.

Mr. President, members of the council, the item before us is essentially to do what we have done in at least two distinct other instances, and I can see no reason why we should or we would depart from that item. What we are essentially talking about is the revitalization of one of the parts of this city. We made reference to the Staples Arena. We made reference to Trizic Condos are in two redevelopment project areas. Mr. President, members of the council, the Coliseum Exposition Park. is in a redevelopment project area, the Hoover redevelopment project area. And so there's already a compelling case for us to do what we can as a matter of public policy. as a matter of state law to revitalize areas that warrant such support and attention. The other point that I wish to make is that when we talk about this particular project, the New Coliseum project, we are essentially talking about a project that is a public asset. The Coliseum venue itself is. All of the venues in the park are. And the real point to be made here is that we are talking about the infrastructure. that would be enjoyed by all of the museums, those who visit the Rose Gardens, those that are going to the new elementary school that is being built, those who would be frequenting the new recreation center that we are investing in there. This infrastructure that we are talking about, parking and public improvements, are precisely that. It would seem to me that it should be known that when we talk about the stadium and its finance, the current proposal calls for it to be completely financed by the private sector. The purchase or the acquisition of the team is completely financed in terms of the private sector. What are the numbers there? Roughly $800 million to a billion dollars is what is being discussed generally in that regard. And what we are talking about is making this happen, making it happen so that The sports, arts, and entertainment corridor called Figueroa that many of us have been talking about comes to life, anchored on the southern end by Exposition Park and all of the splendor that it represents. It is, in fact, quickly becoming a regional destination point. It complements what's going on in terms of the Staples Center, but not simply that, which people try to reduce to a sports pleasure palace, and obviously it's much more than that. It does art, it does entertainment, it does the Democratic National Convention and all of those other things. So we shouldn't look at this narrowly. I would simply say the following. We have an opportunity to do something very significant and I would appeal to all members of the council if you support it. TrizicCon, if you supported the Staples Arena, if you supported DreamWorks, it seems to me that we are at least obliged to support Hoover Redevelopment, Exposition Park, and with a higher degree of commitment because this, in fact, is an investment in a public asset. And for that reason, If no other reason, I think the CLA and the CAO have done their job well pursuant to our request, which is to compare this in terms of this applicability to other existing projects that are consistent with city policy. And I would urge support of the report from the CLA and the CAO. And I would also say that we continue the motion that had come before us are defeated because it seems to me that it represents a gratuitous deal breaker.

Thank you very much, Mr. Willie Thomas. Mr. Bernson.

You know, it's true that we have invested in other ventures. But I think what we're dealing with here with the NFL is one of negotiation. And one of the tools in negotiation is being able to play a good game of poker. And I think that very clearly the public perceives that they're against giving public funds. I'm not totally opposed to the NFL coming to Los Angeles, but I think they have to be willing to shoulder their share of the cost and not try to shake us down for any more money, very frankly. We're dealing with not the old NFL. When I worked at the Coliseum as a kid going to school, We had two pro teams, and we had SC and UCLA.

Do they have cars then, Mr. Burton? They had cars then.

Yeah, they had cars and street cars that people could afford to, by the way. But the point is that it's changed. Today, it's not so much a sport. It's a big business. And the employment that results from the NFL isn't so much going to benefit the people of Los Angeles as some of the other types of activities that take place and some of the other things that we've invested in. True, the Coliseum did need refurbishing. I think that there has been considerable improvement made. But I think that we're just one of the partners in the Joint Powers Agreement. The real question is, what is the county and the state willing to do? Is the state willing to up the ante a little bit? Is the entertainment industry willing to, the media, which benefits tremendously from the television of these games, Are they willing to come up with some of the costs that they're asking perhaps the taxpayers to come up with? I think these are a lot of questions that require answers. And I think that one of the things we ought to say to them now, which doesn't mean that we can't make some agreement if we come to a meeting of minds, we ought to at least tell them right now out front that we're not willing to put any more taxpayer dollars out front. I think that's just a step of negotiations. Mark, and I admire your efforts. By the way, I think that Councilman Ridley Thomas needs to be complimented on the work that he's done in trying to return not just an NFL team to Los Angeles, but the work to enhance the neighborhood that this exists in. And I spent a lot of time in that park, in that coliseum, when I was a little younger, back in the dark ages. And it really is worthy of restoration. And if we can get an NFL team here, and we should, and they should, have to want to come here, because this is still the top sports center of the country. Let them step up to the plate with a few bucks. And let's at least say for now that we're not going to put any more money up. And I'm going to support it on that basis, which doesn't mean that I'm not amenable to look at, if they come up with a meaningful offer, that we're not willing to look at it as a council.

Thank you very much. Ms. Mizikowski.

Thank you, Mr. President. I have some questions for the staff. If there were not an NFL in the picture, might we be looking and exploring with the state the possibility of building a parking structure to enhance the parking in and around the California Science Center and the Exposition Park?

My understanding is that the museums are looking at additional parking, and to the extent we can cooperate with the University of Southern California, I understand that they're interested in parking as well.

So in essence, you're saying that there is a public need for parking there separate and apart from the NFL, and it's something that were the state to look at it, we, the city, because of our redevelopment funds, might be looking at it as well in terms of some joint authority.

That's true. I don't think anyone knows how much parking is needed for an NFL game right now in the Coliseum. So the gap between those two numbers is a debatable issue at this point. But there is definitely parking needed in Exposition Park for existing facilities.

And did I understand you say that right now the whole Exposition Park area and all the parking that is there, whether the legitimate parking in the parking lots or the parking that I might call illegitimate, as you would go there to various events and see parking in and around people's front yards or backyards or side yards. All of that was generally, the city was not getting a parking tax on it, one because the state exempted its own parking and the other we weren't getting.

That's correct.

Okay, so there is the exploration, you say one of the fundamental principles of this proposal, it seemed to me, would be the state itself allowing a tax or creating a tax on the parking in its own area to help support this.

They would have to change, actually the assembly person who put the bill in initially, I tried to convince that the parking tax raised on Exposition Park be used in Exposition Park and we would assume that that law would change and go back to that position.

Well, it seems to me that some of those items which are in your report bear further exploration and further possibility of the city giving some consideration to whether or not something makes sense there, separate and apart again from the NFL, but in the part of looking at a rejuvenation and a refurbishment of that whole exposition area and providing appropriate parking with a number of different whether it's USC and or any other interest that comes in, there are clearly areas there that I think bear some concern. If this motion were to pass, which said that no public funds at all could be spent on this, what would that limit and or hamper your office and the CAO from even receiving these proposals and looking at and analyzing some of the financial packages or pictures or proposals that an outside agency might present to us?

Well, I think that if the motion passes, I think then our position would be that any plan brought to us in the CO's office would be, if it involved public funds, we wouldn't look at it. You would not even be able to look at it? Well, I would be able to, but there would be no need.

All right, thank you. Mrs. Chick?

Yes, just two further points, colleagues. One, what is before us is my motion saying no public dollars. However, the CAO CLA report does make a very specific recommendation. I think there was some confusion, at least on my part, in your response to someone else's question. saying we haven't made any recommendations. There's a recommendation that says, authorize the negotiators for the new coliseum partners, private sector, on behalf of the city to commence discussions with the state and NFL in an effort to come to agreement on the structure of the public participation as outlined above. Am I not correct that that is also then submitted? Because that is something I am absolutely unwilling to vote for and colleagues I would urge you not to vote for it. It is very much as Mr. Wax said, we would be giving direction to private negotiators to negotiate on behalf of the city in an agreement, to come to an agreement on the structure of public participation as outlined in this report. So it goes completely the other direction from my motion and says private sector, negotiate on behalf of the city according to what's in here, which is to use public dollars. And two, are we not still waiting to hear from the CRA and the CRA Commission on its presentation of its budget, whether it's a viable agency, what its structure is, whether it can survive, whether it can, for instance, continue The very, very small budget that it has in the West San Fernando Valley, the very first time the CRA ever did anything in that part of the city, is that not all still in question, Mr. Deaton, while we talk about having the CRA undertake another huge project?

Two things. One, and I'll take the latter. First, the CRA, Hoover, all we're saying is that if there is a $200 to $400 million investment by private individuals in refurbishment of the Coliseum for an NFL stadium, that that will result in $2 to $4 million per year of tax increment to the Hoover Redevelopment Agency. Period. There is a 20% set aside for housing. The remainder of that is, like in every other redevelopment area in the city, eligible for uses only within...

But if you'd answer my question about the CRA and... Period. Just the CRA.

To use that money does not require any management from the CRA. Any more than it did in the arena. I mean, the money was there. If the money is there, that doesn't mean that they're doing anything. They're managing the project. It does not mean the CRA even issues the bonds.

Well, I think our CRA is in jeopardy, and we're waiting to hear how it's doing. But at any rate, colleagues, I ask for your vote on my motion today.

Mr. Fuhrer.

Thank you, Mr. President. I've been really wrestling with this. And if the motion before us had said no general fund dollars should be allocated to this without taking into account what might in the future be built at the site, which I think is what most people in the public who look at this issue think it is, then I would be the first person to say we should vote for it in a second. And I also agree with the sentiment just expressed by Ms. Chick and earlier expressed by Mr. Wax that this council should never be in the business of delegating to third parties over whom we have no control negotiating powers that affect the city's taxpayers. I'm not sure that's on the table. I think it's not. If it is, no one's going to vote for it. So the question is, how do we deal on its merits with the array of permutations that could be presented to this council by private interests, state government, the Coliseum Commission, the county, and whoever? And what I'm wrestling with is this. Mr. Wax in prior debates has accurately said that when we talk about, for example, allocating parking revenue from a yet-to-be-created project to pay off a bond, that we don't give that to everybody in town. So why should we give it here? And that's sort of what I'm looking at in this case. The reason that I'm hesitant to support the motion as it's written, although I would in a second support a motion that says no general fund dollars extrinsic to what might in the future happen there, is what if the state were to come in and say, we'll provide whatever money that it wants to provide from whatever coffers it has available to it, and other parties were to as well. And then the proposal were to be, let's lift the exemption on the parking tax at exposition, allow the city to collect parking tax from yet to be created projects there, and let the city keep 90% of that money, with 10% being allocated to paying off debt. That's just one among a whole array of possible proposals. Maybe that's not one at all, but it is possible. If that were to come before us, would we say no to that? I don't know. I'm not sure. If the city's participation were to be limited to using parking revenue from yet to be built structures, 10% to this, 90% to the general fund, but without that deal, there's no money for the general fund at all from this, would we say no? I'm not sure. And it's that lack of certainty over the permutations that might be given to us, none of which is before us, that leads me to be hesitant to support the motion as it's drafted. I mean, I am happy to, and I will move to, and I think this would not be a friendly amendment, so I will move it as a substitute, that the, although we can still be friends later, Ms. Jen, I will move that we, that the motion state that no general funds be allocated to bringing a football team to Los Angeles, but without taking into account what in the future might be built at the Coliseum, and leave it at that. No taxpayer dollars that's in any city coffer right now should be allocated to this, leaving open for possible acceptance or rejection later on. Anything that might come forward.

Do we have a second on that? Yes. Mr. Wax.

Okay.

No way, Mike. Let me first, the point regarding the redevelopment fund money is being used for this, that's not what's at issue here. That's a redevelopment decision choice. But that's not what's involved. What's involved here is they want government, they want taxpayers to finance part of the deal, particularly the infrastructure, and they want to repay their debt by using sales taxes, business taxes, utility taxes, income taxes, transit occupancy taxes, and all other tax sources that every business in this town pays to pay for police and fire and traffic and other related services. We did not permit that, Mr. Ridley-Thomas, in the Staples Agreement. That is exactly what Staples wanted, and we refused to do it. We said only a tax on tickets for the people who go there and the parking that is there. We refused to allow them to repay any of their debt with any of the taxes that all businesses in this city are to be paid. Now, Trizicon did do that, and Ms. Goldberg knows that I opposed it on that ground only. And I did oppose that. But I'll tell you one thing. There's a lot more reason to do it there than there is here. There is a lot more benefit to come from job producing entities in the revitalization of a community than there is from a football team that's going to have 10 games a year that every every academic study in the country shows produces no meaningful benefit in terms of economic stimulus or jobs to the area. The Raiders didn't do squat for the area, Mr. Willie Thomas. The Rams didn't do it. And this new team aren't going to do it. And nothing in this report. Here you have a city people giving you a report without even looking at any of the possible economic benefits in return for that. That's what the whole UCLA study is all about. Ms. Goldberg is to say, before we invest our money, let's make sure that there's something in return. And believe me, there is nothing in return to this than more profits to billionaire owners and gazillionaire players. And there's nothing but crumbs to anybody else. And that's what aggravates taxpayers. Ms. Misikowski, you asked whether certain things could be considered that might be appropriate. Ms. Chick's motion does provide that outlet. It says to the extent, Mr. Fuhrer, you do want to use any taxes, go to the voters for their approval. That, by the way, was what the initiative was going to be the last time around in what will be this time. If you want to use it, before you decide for people that it's good for them, let them decide on this themselves. What a debate it'll have. It'll not only talk about football, but it'll finally bring to the core the debate of what government should and should not subsidize. What we demand and not in return for the investments we put in it. And I guarantee you, when that debate happens, football will be at the bottom of the list. And other economic developments will rise much higher and will merit support on a citywide policy basis.

Mrs. Walters.

Thank you, Mr. President. Council members, I have a fax here that came to me this morning from Eli Broad, and I think we all know who Mr. Broad is and what he represents. And his conclusion here is that there should be a commencement of discussions with the state and NFL uh... only on the following conditions no new taxes no increased taxes no risk to the city county or state's general fund uh... mister really thomas is over here playing the amen corner uh... uh... uh... uh... thomas is not talking straight here he says that what we're talking here is parking infrastructure for all revenues all venues in the park i passed through uh... uh... exposition park rather frequently. I go down Menlo and I've told Mr. Ridley-Thomas he wants to cut off my shortcut. But still, there are parking lots on the Vermont side of the park. There were some housing units there for years that have now been demolished. The lots have been paved. And I don't see a whole lot of traffic over there parking in those parks, even when there's something going on at the Coliseum. The parking for the Science Museum and the Museum of Science and Industry is accessed off of the Figueroa side of the park. But it is not too far to walk if that parking gets overloaded to walk from the Vermont side of the park to those other venues. So I don't think it's about infrastructure for all the venues in the park. When you talk about the Coliseum renovation would be an asset to the community, nobody in that community is going to be able to buy a ticket to it, just like nobody is going to be able to buy a ticket to Staples unless their corporation are extremely affluent. So it's not going to be a benefit to the general public. And also, the design takes out the regulation track that used to be there, and when high schools and colleges used it for track meets for people going to the Olympics. But now it would not qualify. uh... the parking issue as mister really thomas wants to structure it there again i said before and i say again the revenue from the parking the taxes should go to the general fund so it is even if it's new parking new money that we have not been able to access before The revenue should go to the general fund. That's the benefit to the city of it being there. If it doesn't go to the general fund, all of it, then there's no benefit to the city in them being there, and we should not be putting money into it. Let them pay their own way.

Mr. Ridley-Thomas.

Mr. President, members of the Council, just a couple of observations and then I want to give the balance of my time to another speaker. One is any claims that we have not disclosed information with regularity can't be substantiated. Mr. Brax, I remind you of documents all the way from 1997 where we've consistently shared with you information. Mr. Wax, we're not talking about 10 event days. We're talking about as many as 40. What are we talking about? We're talking about professional football, collegiate football. We're talking about soccer. We're talking about the revisiting of major events, papal visits, presidential visits, international visits, et cetera, et cetera. And so it's easy to try to make it appear as though this is insignificant, but it is not. Mr. Wax, you assert these academic studies that are generalities in most instances. Look at the specifics of Los Angeles, and you will find how powerful the opportunity could be here. I think the Hoover Redevelopment Project ought to be given the same consideration of any other project. I share the view with respect to the CLA and CAO's report. Surely they're not going to hand over negotiations on behalf of the city to private negotiators. It should essentially say a city designated representatives who would presumably then be the CAO and the CLA and or the head of the redevelopment agency. Mr. Deaton, Mr. Fujioka, I would think that would be an appropriate revision of your statement. And that would handle that matter rather effectively. No new taxes, no increase in existing taxes, no exposure to the general fund is essentially the mantra that we have communicated for two and a half years running. I maintain that position. I know all of us do. And if it's helpful, I would so move so that it is clear that that's the position that we take. That does not preclude. that does not preclude tax increment proposals. The flaw in the motion that is before us, it says all public funds. It can't be because, in fact, redevelopment dollars are public funds. I would simply say the tax increment scenario that's before us is useful to consider. Mr. President, with your permission, I would like to give at least a minute of time to John Thomas to explain one particular point. Will you?

Mr. Deaton. All right.

Well, two things. One is as far as having information on this, and to the extent that we had information in the last couple, three weeks, it is not unlike what I just got through describing that they're talking about various city revenues and state revenues, and we don't know what split anybody has in mind, one, and two, how much parking is required if At this point, and that's still, so everything is up in the air, there is no real deal. And I, on the recommendation, I would like to clarify that what the confusion was, that as I reread that, as I said this morning, it sounds like something I did not mean. What I was meaning by that recommendation is that the individual should go forth and work with the state because they are the primary source of revenue and come back to the city, not that we're authorizing them to negotiate on our behalf, even though that's exactly what it says. That's not the intent. And I think anybody who knows me would never believe that I would recommend turning the city's negotiations over to anybody.

Okay, Mr. Thomas, you've got 30 seconds.

Thank you. The Coliseum Commission has developed exhaustive studies on the tax increments, the various kinds we've been discussing here, that would be produced by a project of this sort. After debt service, there would be, based on the Coliseum Commission's projections, over $360 million available to the state and city to do as they wish after debt service, which is a very significant amount. Secondly, Mr. Wax, I would be happy, as I offered two weeks ago to an aide in your office, to talk with you and meet with you personally to describe this, if you'd like this, in further detail. But I do encourage anybody who voted on TriZetCon, this is no different at all in principle, to support the plan.

Ms. Goldberg.

You know, I'm really on the one hand, on the other hand on this, and I really need help. Because on the one hand, I agree, and if she had asked me, I would have seconded Laura's motions. I mean, that's where my head and my heart really are. On the other hand, there is the possibility that the continued improvement of that whole area has a fallout effect on that whole area, which is also very important to my head and heart. On the other hand, I would feel so much better if what we were discussing was a specific proposal. Because in a specific proposal, then you weigh, well, you like this part, you don't like that part, you can support it or not support it. On the other hand, if you don't do something to allow a proposal to come to you, you never get to weigh a specific proposal. So I'm not here to speak on one side or the other, but to tell you that if people will address some of these things, it'll help me make up my mind. I feel like I agree with half of the things each speaker is saying. And I'm in a real dilemma because I do want to see that area of South Central have some economic vitality. I do think the things that are happening there are making a difference. Do I think football will add to that? I'm not so sure. I'm really not so sure. Maybe the things that you've already done there are the things that needed to be done and we should be debating a parking structure for the existing facility. And I would really support that and have no trouble with that at all. I have no trouble saying I want to make an investment in that area. I have no trouble saying that. It's the connection to the 10 times a year football thing that makes me concerned, or 15 or whatever it turns out. But you know what I mean. It's not a lot. And it's that notion that is also, I find, extremely irritating that the NFL believes somehow or another it has to have a pound of public flesh in order to deign your city with a team that galls me to the very root of my being. On the other hand, I do not want to miss any opportunities to make that area alive and prosperous. So I hope people will help me continue to sort that out with this debate. That's sort of the on the one hand. I agree. On the other hand. No, but I mean, it's a real dilemma because you don't want to miss any opportunities. On the other hand, I'm not sure, as Mr. Wax said from studies, that this is going to have that effect. But maybe it's part of keeping the ball rolling. I don't know. All I know is that if we were talking about a specific plan, we were talking about a specific proposal, and that it was really about basically meeting the needs of the existing venues, I'd have no trouble at all. Absolutely none.

All right. Thank you. Ms. Galanter.

Okay, I've been trying very hard to follow all of this, and I think the thing that troubles me the most is that I do want to vote on a specific proposal, and I don't have one. There is none at this point. I do not agree that the word participation necessarily means writing a check. The word participation is, I believe, in the CAO and CLA recommendation. It often means that, but it doesn't have to mean that. Sometimes, you know, we went through this on the DreamWorks thing and everybody said, oh, you were giving them $35 million. Well, in fact, we weren't giving them anything. And they weren't gonna get anything unless they performed. And since they're not gonna, they're not gonna get anything. But the deal was set up initially in a way that allowed for public participation that did not involve giving them any money. And I find this enormously frustrating. It's very attractive to vote for a motion that says no public money, no how, no way. And I certainly agree with Mr. Feuer that I don't wanna put any general fund money in this. I don't wanna give the NFL anything. I think their arrogance is beyond, discussion you know the money is money and if they can get it out of it they shouldn't be getting it from us but I I also think mr. Ridley Thomas is right and I've struggled with the difficulties of redeveloping some parts of my district and I know that this can go on for years and years and years and and you can make tiny steps and some other steps. And I think we are stuck now with the problem that it's too soon to cut off negotiations entirely. And that's why I raised the question before about the timing. I don't want to cut this off, blap, right in the middle while the state is doing whatever they're doing, because they're going to do it anyway. I mean, we just went through, or we're still going through, the question of whether the state and the city are going to pay for studies of secession. And that's general fund money we're talking about. And the city would never have considered it at all if the state hadn't done something first. So I think we need to hear what the state is going to do here. And I think there are two motions before us now. Well, there's three. There's Laura's motion. There's Mike's substitute motion. And Mr. Ridley-Thomas, I think, also had a motion. And so I'm reluctant to put another one out there without having a chance to vote on those, but I really feel that we would be best off if we did not have to vote on Mrs. Chick's motion that would just cut off negotiations without hearing from the state and from whoever else, the museums and whoever else needs this parking structure, what it is that they think would be helpful to them. So I don't want to vote for it today. I don't want to vote it down, but I will. I'll vote against it, but I will if I have to. I'd rather hold it over. I'd rather vote for Mr. Feuer's motion, which said no general funds. I have no problem with that at all. And somebody will have to remind me exactly what Mr. Ridley-Thomas' motion said.

But I just think that if we...

I'm sorry, what?

Your time is up.

You're not going to remind me, huh? Okay.

Mr. Hernandez.

Mr. President, members of the council, I kind of feel like I started all this debate, and the reason I want to take claim for that is there was a time when there was a proposal to put a football stadium at Dodger Stadium. And I conducted hearings, and as a result of those hearings, we found out that we already had a football stadium, a place where we could play football called the Coliseum. The debate that's going on right now is basically saying, bring us an NFL team and we'll get a new football stadium, when in fact we have a stadium, a historic stadium, that football can be played at. And that happens on a weekly basis when we talk about USC. But more important, it happens when we talk about soccer and we fill it up with 100,000 people. And this proposed new stadium will reduce that capacity to 60. And then there won't be any stadium in the area except for the Rose Bowl that will have that kind of capacity when events like the World Cup come and so forth. Now, I'm trying to put this debate in perspective because the fact is we have a historic monument that has served the city well called the Coliseum. and it's surrounded by a beautiful park and a beautiful structure in terms of our museums and it continues to grow and yes parking is a problem but that's not what before is before us today what's before us today is a motion that clearly states I therefore move that the City Council, in the spirit of a free market driven commerce, enthusiastically support a plan for a privately funded professional football team in Los Angeles, while maintaining our commitment to invest public funds only in civic projects that benefit all Angelenos. It also states that the City Council stand firm against the commitment of any city funds to purchase, relocate, or expand an NFL team in the City of Los Angeles. And the third further move, that any request for any local funds to entice an NFL team to Los Angeles be put before the voters. It says nothing about the Coliseum's parking structure. And we're having this tremendous debate. And I just wanted to kind of put it in perspective because what we're talking here is strictly about the negotiations with the NFL and the fact that we're not going to give them any public funds. We're not talking about enhancement of our facility in the Hoover Redevelopment District. That's not before us. That could still come before us. We can still build a parking structure if we find the public benefit and the need to do that. But I wanted to put it in perspective because the debate's gone in all kinds of circles. And it started because they wanted to build the football stadium at Elysian Park. And it continued on. And now they're talking about renovating our beautiful stadium. Now, we might choose to do that. But we have to have a reason to do that. And right now, I think that parking is important. But that's not what's before us today. It's the motion. And I urge us to support the motion before us.

Mr. Fuhrer.

Thank you, Mr. President.

As has been said recently, there's a lot in this debate that has nothing to do with actually what's on the table. It's not as though we are being asked today to vote on a specific proposal. That's part of the problem. It's not as though we're being asked to say to owners for whom greed and arrogance appear to be watchwords rather than things to be avoided that we are going to give you all this stuff. The question is, are we to preclude entertaining any possibilities analogous to what most of us voted for, for example, at Staples. I mean, Mr. Wax, for whom I have a lot of respect and who has said a lot with which I agree today, was among us to vote for the Staples agreement. The Staples agreement included taking a city-owned parking lot and saying that new parking revenue from it could be allocated to the arena. Is that kind of structure something we might want to contemplate here, that but for this we would otherwise not have? I don't know. We are not here today, I don't think, to advocate for any particular deal or structure. That would be a fundamental error. We are not here today to cut off the public's possible right to vote on whatever comes down the pipe. We might choose to do that. The motion I have on the table would not preclude that at all. Maybe we want to do. And we're certainly not here to shove anything down the public's throat because there is a consensus here that the owners have displayed remarkably bad judgment in the way they've handled working with the city of Los Angeles and have put off the vast majority of the electorate, including all or at least most of us. There's no question about that. But should we preclude a staples-like approach here? I don't know. It's premature to say on my view. Should we preclude where there's discussion about design for this? There's no design that's before us, as far as I know. Should we discuss the off-site impact of this? I don't think so. I think that the entire financial analysis should be, as it was with Staples, a site-specific analysis, assuming nothing about what other catalytic effect it might have in the surrounding neighborhood. But on its merits, might something happen that could work? I don't know. but not a nickel of existing general fund money should go to the owners. There's no question about that. That I do know. So that's the spirit that I'm attempting to bring to this debate, is to make clear to the owners that the approach that they take to shake down other cities will not work here. but to leave open the possibility that something that might be of broader benefit at exposition could, if the numbers were right, like with Staples, make some sense. So that's what I'm asking for today. But let's focus on what's here and not some phantom deal that may or may not come to us, which we might all choose to vote down later. And nothing that's on the table precludes us from voting down something later on or accepting it. Thank you.

Ms. Misikowski.

In an effort to reconcile, I think a lot of this discussion and a lot of what I think we are all saying that is in agreement. I have a motion, actually two motions, but it's to put the same language in both what we have before us. First, I would move that as an amendment that we change the recommendation in the CLA-CAO report to just say that authorize the CAO and CLA to be involved in discussions with the new Coliseum partners, the state, and the NNL in an effort to come to an agreement on the structure of the public participation in any new proposal consistent with the guidelines that there be no new taxes, no increased taxes, and no risk to the city, county, or state's general fund in that negotiation. I would then move that the motion, and the only problem I have with the motion by Ms. Chick and Mr. Ferraro, is the phrase any city funds, because although Mr. Ridley-Thomas and Mr. Deaton talked about the CRA funds and Mr. Wax said it doesn't mean that, it could. It's hair-splitting. Clearly the CRA is separate, but it also is something generated through the city. What if we changed the any city funds in part two of that motion that the city council stand firm against the commitment of any new taxes, any increased taxes, or any risk to the city, county, or state's general fund in the pursuit of the purchase, relocation, or expansion of an NFL league. Because as Mr. Hernandez and I think Ms. Goldberg also indicated, there are things separately in that exposition area that we want to do. We might very much want, in fact I think we do want, a better parking situation, a new parking structure. Although it is a state park, the Rose Garden is the city's. There are other rec and park facilities. There are a lot of other things. What if the NFL deal is contingent on a city participation in a separate public parking facility? It's not a gift to the NFL. It's a gift to the public by using our funds in a way economically that makes sense, but it might entice the other there. So my motion is to actually... amend both the items before us to put the same language in exactly. And it also allows the CLA and the CAO to be involved, to be at the table. If not, I think if we adopt the any city funds, it really drops the curtain. And the CLA, CAO, as we heard Mr. Deaton indicate, could not be involved, could not even be involved in doing some research to report back to the council on the benefits, the cost, the negative effects, et cetera. So I think resolving that, the any city funds is an absolute absolute. The no new taxes, no increases, no risk to the general fund gives us the latitude with the CLA and the CAO at the table to say if there's a specific proposal, which is what we all want to see, does it make sense does it balance, does it bring into perspective everything that we're concerned about in revitalizing the area and not giving a dime to the NFL owners, then I think it makes sense. So that's my motion.

Okay. Mr. Wax. I want to respond to a few points, first by Mr. Fuhrer and then by Mr. Hernandez. Mr. Fuhrer... You're part right, but you're in the most significant part wrong. Staples did provide a ticket surcharge, and it did provide additional parking revenue attributable to the facility. But it also provided an ironclad guarantee that if they fell short, they would foot the bill. And it absolutely precluded the use of sales, income, utility, business license, TOT, and other taxes from being used in any way. And now that has not been good enough for the NFL and the developers. In fact, the NFL and the developers don't even want to give up the parking revenue. That's been part of the thing. The governor said, at least use the parking revenue. They said no. So they not only now don't want to use the parking revenue, they want to keep the parking revenue, and they want to use the taxes. And that's, in your use of the words, only in the general fund now are the killer words because it's the future taxes that they're talking about. They're not talking about taking out the taxes we're using this year. They're talking about the taxes in the future years. And that is exactly what is wrong with this. Now, Mr. Hernandez, you asked what the relevance was because you started with the analogy of Dodger Stadium or Elysian Park, and you were absolutely right. I went to the last game, SC-UCLA game at the Coliseum, and it was fabulous, not only because UCLA won again, but because 92,000 people had a fabulous time, Mr. President.

Just a minute. Wait a minute now.

and i don't want to miss that one of our you have a very rich man anybody who sought the u s women's soccer team when the women's cup at the car at at this at the rose bowl with ninety two thousand people enjoy it probably the most exciting for sporting event that we've had in this area in God knows when, and they didn't need luxury boxes that cost $300,000. This is not about that, Mr. Ridley-Thomas. The soccer can still be here. The SC-UCLA games and the SC games can still be here. What they're wanting the money for is something uniquely for them. luxury boxes that corporations buy for three four hundred thousand dollars a year parking so that god forbid they shouldn't have to walk through the neighborhood you know come on what was the whole attitude about the coliseum in the first place which we try to decry now miss goldberg you you mentioned You mentioned possibly using money for existing facilities. And Mr. Ridley-Thomas and I support it. And in fact, he proposed and I did the ballot argument for something that was used not for football, but only for the amenities around there. And I guarantee you what we were contemplating was a lot different than this. What's being contemplated here is only for the benefit of bringing a greedy NFL football team, which doesn't want to put up. They want the first billion-dollar deal in Los Angeles, in the country, and then they'll use it all over the rest of the country. They want that billion-dollar deal, and they want it badly. And I'm telling you to take it out of our taxpayers' pockets to give them what they want is just inexcusable.

Thank you, Mr. Wax. Thank you.

Mr. Ridley-Thomas. Mr. President, members of the council, I rise simply to say what we have collectively said for the past two and a half years. No increase in existing taxes, no new taxes, no exposure to the city's general fund. We don't compromise on that point. It had always been are thinking that tax increment scenarios would be appropriate. When we began this effort, we did not have a Staples Center scenario. We did not have Trizicon. We did not have DreamWorks. We have learned a number of things that are, in fact, consistent with city policy. to advance the public good in terms of revitalization, the whole jobs agenda, the economic development agenda. This is at bottom what that is about. Anybody who dismisses the potential for the Staples Center to turn on downtown in a significant way ought to think again. Anybody who says that Trizic Con is a waste of time and it won't do a thing for Hollywood ought to think again. Anybody who thinks the revitalization of Exposition Park won't be the most significant activity in the part of the city that we know as University Park, Exposition Park, that part of the city south of the Santa Monica Freeway is grossly mistaken. For the past half a century, there has not been anything as significant. potentially as this economic impact. And so the motion made by Ms. Miszkowski, the comments made by Mr. Feuer and Ms. Galanter are consistent with our moving forward and trying to make something very promising and yet prudent happen. No new taxes, no increase in existing taxes, no exposure to the general fund, and I should simply say that that doesn't preclude the tax increment scenario that we are considering. I support Mrs. Misikowski's motion and would urge all members to do likewise.

Mr. Pacheco?

May I move the question? All right, sir. Second.

Mr. Pacheco moves the previous question. Prepare the roll on the previous question. Tabulate to vote.

Twelve ayes, two noes.

Okay, the previous question has been imposed. What do we have first? No. You can speak tomorrow.

motion forty five c is in this case the motion but i mean uh... first is authorizing ceo in the c l a on behalf of the city to be involved discussions with statement and i fell in effort to come to an agreement on the structure of the public participation is outlined above and that no new taxes no increase taxes no risk to the city county or state general fund be involved

AMEND THE MOTION BEFORE US ON THE ANY CITY FUNDS TO INCREASE TO THAT SAME LANGUAGE. IT WOULD ITEM TWO OF THE MOTION BEFORE US WOULD BE AMENDED IN A SIMILAR VEIN TO RESOLVE THAT THE ANY CITY FUNDS PORTION BE THAT THE CITY COUNCIL STAND FIRM AGAINST THE COMMITMENT OR STAND FIRM AGAINST ANY NEW TAXES, ANY INCREASED TAXES OR ANY RISK TO THE CITY, COUNTY OR GENERAL FUND IN THE PURSUIT OF THE PURCHASE RELOCATION OR AN EXPANSION TEAM.

Okay, prepare the roll on Ms. Sikowsky's motion.

Authorize the CEO and the CLA on behalf of the city to be involved with discussions with state and NFL in effort to come to agreement on the structure of the public participation as outlined in the report. Yes, any.

OK, prepare the roll. Yes. And I vote. I'm dividing the question. Prepare the roll. Tabulate the vote.

Six ayes, eight noes.

That failed. Now the other part.

No general fund, no taxes.

Prepare the roll on that.

No new taxes, no increased taxes, no risk to the city, county, or state general fund.

Tabulate.

Prepare the roll and tabulate the vote. Mr. President, it's a point of clarification, if I may.

Nine ayes, five noes.

That is approved. Next item.

Item 45B is a furor galantra motion. That's moot. Forty-five A was the adoption of the CAO and CLA reports. That also included no new taxes, no increased taxes, so that's also mute.

That's mute. Receive and file.

Number 45, that is currently before you.

Can we divide the question on those also? 45. I'd like to divide the question just as we did in the last one and vote on those three items. Wait a minute.

Recommendations 1, 2, and 3? Yes. Well, you have to go through them.

Give us one first.

Recommendation number one, resolve that the city council in the spirit of free market driven commerce support a plan for a privately funded professional football team in Los Angeles while maintaining the city's commitment to invest public funds only in civic projects that benefit all Angelenos.

Is that the original?

The original check motion? Yeah.

That is the original as contained in the resolution.

What? I need clarification. It's really 45. We need clarification. 45 recommendation number one as it was originally submitted by mrs. Miss chick. That's correct Irish a no vote It's inconsistent.

Well, we just adopted prepare the roll Tabulate the vote 12 eyes to know and that is approved now on number two a

Item number two, resolve that the city council stand firm against the commitment of any city funds to the purchase, relocation, or expansion of a National Football League team to the city of Los Angeles.

Now, Cindy says in lieu of that, correct? But wait a minute.

Yes, it was. Yes, Mr. Clerk.

Yes, and that's why it essentially obviated the point of Ms. Tick's motion.

That was what was being correct. But 45.3 is still in the desk.

It only amended the second. The item weren't one. It amended it.

You got that, Dr. Conrad?

Point of clarification.

What is your clarification?

I just wonder, would improvements to, say, a parking structure or improvements to the Coliseum itself, which would be for public benefit, would that be a separate thing, or how would you find whether that's part of funds for the NFL? Maybe somebody can clarify that for me.

Mr. Deaton, can you have an answer to that?

Don't look so excited.

May I, as the author of the motion? Yeah, who's the author? My intent was a civic, and you were the seconder, Mr. Ferro. Civic projects definitely would include improvements to parking for Exposition Park. and the various infrastructure needs that Mr. Ridley-Thomas has so well put before us for the general use of the public and that Ms. Goldberg clarified as well. So that would not be precluded. There's nothing in my motion that precludes improvements to Exposition Park.

All right. Prepare the roll on that.

Which item now are we voting on?

Two.

Two as amended.

As amended.

Original or as amended by Ms. Misakowski? As amended.

As amended.

No votes.

I vote. Prepare the roll.

And I vote. Tabulate the vote.

Eight ayes, six noes.

And that is approved. Now we have 45 minutes.

Resolve that any request of any local public funds to entice an NFL team to Los Angeles be put before the voters.

Yeah, a no vote.

Prepare the roll. No vote. Tabulate the vote.

Six ayes, eight noes.

And that failed. The next item. Ruth?

Item 32, held on the desk.

no no no not item 30 item 32 yes this item came to the budget finance committee as well as personnel committee but I still have some questions about it the report mentions that a position was transferred because of the living wage. I'd like to know where's Mr. Gilpin or where's Mr. Fujioka? And Mr. Fujioka, maybe you'll tell us who's taking your place in personnel now.

Presently, Ray Allen is the interim general manager for the personnel department.

What was the name again?

Raymond Allen.

Raymond Allen. All right.

Yes, ma'am.

Have you informed him of the necessity for coming to council?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay. To all of you, this report talks about a position being transferred because of the living wage. Was the position added as a result of the living wage, or was this position actually supposed to be transferred before then?

The position was, Ms. Walters, the position was actually requested in November of 1996, the upgrade. We already had the position. It was in place. We requested an upgrade in November of 1996, and I believe the living wage ordinance was passed in March of the following year.

Okay, so that request... really had nothing to do with the living wage.

No, not when we ask it.

To be added, but it's taken out now.

That's correct.

Is that right? On the premise that it went with the living wage.

That's the CO's position.

Right. What would the cost of that upgrade have been?

The cost of the upgrade from a

uh... i remember the figure just let me check was was sixty seven hundred dollars for the upgrade sixty seven hundred dollars and you had worked prior to you had worked in your department that necessitated this upgrade prior to the enactment of the living wage ordinance is that correct that's correct so do you still have work

that needs to be done by this position in positions that you lost uh... prior to the living wage that's our position as well as we believe that that will uh... free up the compliance manager to deal with broader issues policy issues and not be concerned at the same time with the day-to-day running a big of the shop

okay council members i think that uh... we've gotten one of these positions confused with uh... the implementation of the living wage and i would uh... move that we restore this position uh... with the upgrade uh... to the uh... office of comp contract compliance uh... program uh... the work is still there we're always asking for these contracts to be complied with the work is not getting now it's not shrinking and if we expected to be done in a timely fashion i think that we need to support this restoration and upgrade and i would still move madam president

Yes, Mr. Fujioka. Hold on, I've got two more people who want to talk. Go ahead.

Did he need to answer something I said? Yeah, go ahead.

I wanted to reference our report to the council that, as stated, this position was deleted to partially fund two positions currently in the CAO's living wage and service contract retention section. So if, in fact, this position is restored, it will represent... An additional expenditure or additional funding from the general fund.

It would require then- Require. Well, it would either require the additional funding for this one or additional funding for the two this was deleted to fund, right?

Either or, yes ma'am. Okay.

All right, thank you. We got Mrs. Walters. Ms. Goldberg.

Yes, Mr. Fujioka, could you remind us why this swap was made? In other words, who recommended that this position was not necessary and why, and that therefore it could be used to pay for those other two positions?

It's recommended by the Personnel Department and the CAO's office.

Okay. Both the Personnel Department and the CAO's office?

My understanding.

And on what basis did you come to the conclusion that this position could be closed and the funding used to partially pay for the other two positions?

Because of the transfer of responsibilities from the Contract Administration to the CAO's office.

Okay. So this position was it was designated to be working on living wage issues?

Not in its entirety, but I believe the majority of its functions were dedicated to the living wage ordinance.

Okay. Because that was my understanding and why, when this came, we took the personnel department's and the CAO's department's recommendations. So if that's not the case, then I might be inclined to agree with Ms. Walters. But I think we need to get it clear. I'm wondering if we could spend a day and hold this over till tomorrow and ask both the personnel department, all three, Mr. Gilpin and the CAO, to each put in writing what they think this trade-off was and wasn't. Because if, in fact, it's true that it wasn't supposed to do those things and then closing it out paid for the other two then we have a problem here but if it was then we need to know that and I think there is confusion now I thought I was voting on one thing in committee if it's not the case and I don't want to continue but I think rather than do this from the hip I'd like to ask if we can continue this till tomorrow's agenda and ask Mr. Gilpin, Mr. Fujioka and the personnel department Mr. Allen or whoever he designates to give us in writing what they think these exchange of positions all meant and why they think that they recommended as they did and why Mr. Gilpin you think that there was confusion and it's not what it was supposed to be and then we can all look at it tomorrow so that would be my motion as we continue it one day and get it all in writing and make sure we got no confusion because if

there if they've the position wasn't what it was that they told me they were closing to do it for then i don't want to close it either uh... this is what it is you go ahead to thank you uh... manager in response to uh... partially with in response to miss goldberg's uh... question the report that is uh... here today says in the summary second paragraph of the summary in november nineteen ninety six the bureau of contract administration requested the establishment of pay grades for the ccpm classification the existing ccpm position was to be established at the two pay grade level and the one pay grade level was to be created by the reallocation of an existing senior management analyst one this predated by quite some time the passage of the living wage ordinance so it seems to me that that in it in and of itself shows that uh... this should not have been connected to implementation of the living wage ordinance at any time and i believe the uh... amount in the report that you bring back tomorrow if you would clarify

the funding that it's not eighty-some thousand dollars at sixty seven hundred dollars uh... was what the upgrade would have cost and and and now the position is gone in way of clarification that there wasn't existing position assist uh... and contract compliance manager to which was asked for an upgrade that was prior to the living wage the upgrade would have been sixty seven right reaction that has been taken effectively reduces acres of full position and reduces the funding in the Bureau of, I believe, about $81,000, $82,000.

So let me just, if I may, Mrs. Walters, let me just clarify that. So what you're saying is that you had requested an upgrade, but that the action we're looking at here not only denies the upgrade, it gets rid of the position that was going to be upgraded?

And funding.

Just tell me yes or no of what I said and then go ahead. Yes, that's correct. Unless there's objection, I'm going to suggest we continue this till tomorrow and that all three of you see if you can put down in very simple prose what you see as the action that was taken and, frankly, what is the problem that's before us now? For example, the issue Mr. Fujioka raised of if we restore the position, are we pulling the funding from something else? I think it would be helpful to all of us to have a concise description of what unpleasant things we're choosing among here. So that will be continued until tomorrow. Thank you. Next item.

Item not on the agenda, special one, findings need to be found by the city attorney.

Thank you, Madam President. On August 8th, a 20-year-old woman was violently raped after she opened a business at the 8700 block of Sepulveda Boulevard. Police have asked for this reward in order to get the community involved in possible leads for the arrest of the suspect. Therefore, the council would need to make the findings that the need to act arose after the posting of the agenda, and there is an immediate need to act.

All right. Open the roll on the findings. Close the roll. Tabulate the vote. 12 ayes. So the item is before us. Open the roll. Close the roll. Tabulate the vote. 12 ayes. Thank you. Forthwith on that one, please. It was a nasty, nasty one. Next item.

Next item are closed session items.

Now I believe that both of those closed session items could be continued. Is that correct? There have been some requests here buzzing around the back here to continue for one week. Does anybody have a problem with that? Anybody feels an urgent need to stay here and discuss them today? hearing no problem will continue both of those one week to next tuesday which is the fourteenth thank you uh... and the next item that's it right public comment uh... next item is public comment we have

Chair, could we continue that 49, you continue to next Tuesday?

Yes.

Could it be continued to Friday? I'd like to be here for it and I'm out on Tuesday. This Friday or the following Friday? This Friday.

This Friday is a recess day.

This Friday there's no council meeting.

Oh, I forgot. Okay.

Sorry.

Yeah.

All right. We have a number of people who wish to be heard on public comment. Theopolis Hodge. And since there are a number of you, let me ask you each to be brief so we can get you all in.

Hi, I'm Theopolis Hodge. I live in the 8th Council District. There is a Schaefer's department store that is burned up, and I wanted to see if I can have it torn down for a youth center. I got it. And next to it is a child's market that is vacant. And I wonder if there's going to be space where it can be torn down for a youth center to be built.

Thank you. As I'm sure you know, if it's not on the agenda, we're not allowed to discuss it here in the council meeting. That's part of what the Brown Act requires. So you might wish to talk to Mr. Ridley-Thomas.

I wanted to talk to him about this evening to get it torn down.

Yeah, but what I'm suggesting is that it would be appropriate for you to talk with his office, and I'm sure that they'll be happy to help you, and I need to call the next speaker. Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. Richard Robinson.

Madam President, Madam President, members of council, take a stand against the pimps and pushers in Skid Row. Ruth, it's time to stand up to the murderers and rapists who, because of the increasing popularity of the Frontier Hotel, are making Main and Fifth and Fifth and Spring a hangout The proliferating drug trafficking in our area is being caused by the callousness of the slumlords in Rita's district, Skid Row, who are making a business of homelessness. We had a woman, she threw a baby out the window, she killed her baby, and then jumped out the window after the child. Now that's the increasing popularity of those skid row hotels that's bringing an undesirable element into the area. And by the thousands. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Robinson. Hank Ramey. He filled out, too.

Yes, I just want to inform the council that we already talked to people in Parker Center in room G1. And they were told, they told me that I was supposed to, that the watchman has told the sergeant of arms, both of them, to accept the summons and complaint. And I'd like to hand these over to them or hand them to whoever wants to receive them for the sergeant of arms.

Okay, thank you. Mr. Leonard Shapiro.

This is Leonard Shapiro speaking. Madam President, I'd just like to advise you that the Brown Act specifically states you can't comment, if you choose to comment, can't act on it, but you can comment on non-agenda items. In that connection, members of the City Council I see a few of you still sitting here, the rest walking around, I guess. You may not like the members of the public who come and appear before you. But that's the only public you got. So you have to accept the people who speak here. And if they say something to you, it behooves you really to listen. Now, when I started talking to you about $163 million, nobody came to see me. $163 million that you're losing. When I said you're losing $6 million a year, Nobody came to see me talk. Who? See somebody? Nobody commented about it. Yes, let it go out. Public is watching this. There's an average of 15,000 to 20,000 people listening. And when they hear me saying all these things, I got a whistleblower who came to me with documents, and he made these statements. Somebody should be interested. And not just make a casual comment on that. Somebody should see me and possibly the watchdog and talk to him specifically, yourself. But when I said that there's mandates, including a mayor's order and a city council motion, that mandates that the Bureau of Engineering has to update their costs, which are collected from the people who they supervise, must mandate they must do it. every year and you haven't done it since nineteen ninety two now somebody some sincere city council person should be aware of that a statement has been made either i know what i'm talking about or i'm talking a lot of hot air You can watch that article that appeared about a week ago in the L.A. Times and says, yeah, Shapiro comes there, likes to talk and talk. He doesn't say anything. Well, here I'm saying something. I'm saying there's a lot of city money.

Mr. Shapiro, there's two more people who want to speak, so could you finish up here?

I'm just saying you have $163 million that you've already lost in the Bureau of Engineering and the Bureau of Contract Management and the Department of Public Works. This is a fact.

Okay, but you already said that, and I've got two more people who want to speak. So thank you very much. Larry Ross. And Mr. Ross, I've got one more person after you. My name is Larry Ross.

I will begin today by saying to the express that erroneous statement he waited too long concerning the abuses and violations he did against me thus far. Today I'm going to dwell on the erroneous statement being circulated by the conspirators, the perpetrators, the abettors and or the instigators behind the character assassination, slander, libel, lies, and vicious hate campaign with the principal objective to rid themselves of the galactic debt incurred by them by means of contractual violations on numerous occasions, false imprisonments, false arrests, uh... intentionally men subjected to life and health endangerment plagiarisms thefts of valuable projects or property uh... such as the writings and languages created by me one of them particularly made mention of repeatedly uh... before the a so-called air that uh... body here took place in nineteen ninety eight along with one of the many false imprisonments and false arrests, interferences with family relationships, interferences with the religious worship, the government sanctions the selling of defective products to me, the government sanctions the selling of dangerous defective products to me, etc., etc., Taiwan permit me to continue listing and exposing the innumerable violations and abuses perpetrated against me about the conspirators. That goes as far back as 1986. Now back to the erroneous statement, he waited too long. Once the issues raised have been given the adequate, the appropriate, and the desired attention that such matters call for by the proper governmental agencies or enforcement agencies whose primary function is to investigate such wrongdoings, but thus far they have not done it, the hostile environment where such wrongdoings have founded a home to flourish and spread so says to the contrary it says that As long as the courts, the law enforcement, the government at large and in general continue to allow such violations and abuses to go unchallenged, in blatant defiance of the federal constitution and statutes, the state constitution and laws and or statutes, the legally constituted city and county ordinances, then it has not been too long. That's my view, and I would like to hear your view. Therefore, what is yours?

All right. Thank you, Mr. Ross. Mr. Howard Watt.

Thank you, Ruth.

First of all, I want to say to Ruth, we have a case in the court, and I'm a plaintiff against that pluridation. These are two summons of your two sergeant at arms that did not want to accept the summons that we issued to them. We went to P1 and the Captain told us to come back up here and tell these two officers to accept these summons, and we are not going to allow either one of these people not to accept these summons. They have to be in a court of law when they have to face the jury, because that's what is going to be a jury case.

Thank you, Mr. Watts. That concludes the public comment period. The public comment period is closed.

I asked them to come over and accept these comments.

I heard you ask them. Just let me continue running the meeting here for a second. The public comment period is closed. The next item, Mr. Clerk.

Items for request to be excused from council attendance. Ms. Miscausi, request to be excused on November 10th for city business as meets policy.

Yeah.

All right. Without objection, some.

Council Member Goldberg requests to be excused on Wednesday, September 15th to leave at 1145 for city business. This needs motion.

Ms. Misikowski moves. Mr. Padilla seconds.

Ms. Chick requests to be excused on Wednesday, September 15th to leave at 1130. This also requires a motion.

Mr. Hernandez moves. Mr. Bernson seconds.

Ms. Goldberg requests to be excused on Tuesday, September 7th. She's here today, so I guess this is moot. Ms. Goldberg requests to be excused on September 24th to leave at 11 a.m. This meets policy for city business.

All right. Approved.

Mr. Ridley-Thomas, request to be excused on September 14th for city business meets policy.

Okay.

Mr. Ridley-Thomas, request to be excused on Wednesday, September 8th to leave at noon for city business. This meets policy.

Approved.

Mr. Ridley-Thomas, request to be excused September 21st, 22nd, and 24th, October 5th and 6th for city business meets policy.

Good for him. I hope he's going to have a good time.

Councilmember Hernandez, request to be excused on September 22nd for city business meets policy.

So ordered.

Mr. Bernson, request to be excused on September 8th for personal business. This meets policy.

So ordered.

And Ms. Glantzer, request to be excused on September 8th to leave at 1145 for city business meets policy.

Ah, yes. Well, I have to do it. The desk is clear. All right. Do we have any adjourning motions? I actually have one, too. Mr. Bernson. Yes.

Yes, members of the council, it's with the deepest regret that I ask that we adjourn in memory of my cousin, Helen Schuster, who passed away on Monday, September 6th. She survived by her husband, Norman, son, Robert, daughter, Susan, along with three grandchildren.

Anybody else? Mrs. Walters.

Thank you, Madam President. I have three adjourning motions this morning. One is for Nancy Honig, Nancy Caitlin Honig, who was the wife of the former Superintendent of Public Instruction, Bill Honig. Everybody knows her to have been an innovative entrepreneur who was very active in a lot of things. She had volunteered some of her time in Ethiopia. She did many things in terms of parent involvement in the schools. She is survived by her husband, Bill Honig, their four children, Michael, Jonathan, Carolyn, and Stephen, her mother and father, Betsy and Milton Marquardt, her two brothers, Skip and Michael, a grandson, Gavin Michael, two daughters-in-law, Elaine and Erica. She was surrounded by a circle of loyal, loving friends and family. I'd also like to ask council to adjourn in memory of Bert McLeach. uh... was a resident of angela's plasm uh... he was ninety years old at the time of his death he was an early advocate for young adults with developmental and emotional troubles uh... being treated outside institutions and he helped them grow into productive members of the community dr mccleeson is now deceased wife founded the young adult institute new york nineteen fifty seven from initially helping seven young people 16 to 20 with learning difficulties, it grew to what is known as the YAI National Institute for People with Disabilities, one of the country's largest providers of such services. He had been an associate professor of special education at the University of Southern California Graduate School of Education. He took emeritus status in 1975, but continued his advocacy for the mentally impaired until his death. He was very active in the association there at Angeles Plaza was always urging people to vote and bringing political information to them and he was just a lively person. He was a dynamic person really and really interested in all people. I'm really sorry to lose him as a constituent and friend. I also ask the council to adjourn in memory of Mrs. Marjorie Brody. who had been my neighbor for well over thirty years uh... she was the wife of bill brody who was a deceased los angeles police department retiree uh... she was a family friend she was uh... as i indicated a neighbor a very nice person active in her church home and united methodist church her services will not be at home and Thursday morning at 11 o'clock.

Thank you. And I would like to ask that we adjourn in memory of Matty Jordan, who passed away just about a week ago. He was the owner of Matteo's Restaurant on Westwood Boulevard and its subsidiary restaurant called The Taste of Hoboken. So I always particularly felt at home there, along with such luminaries who were there before my time, as Frank Sinatra, who I think was his most celebrated guest. But the newspaper listed among the guests he has served there over the years, presidents Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, entertainers Phyllis Diller, Milton Berle, Rodney Dangerfield, and Henny Youngman, and those fine upstanding citizens, Mickey Cohen and Sam Giancana. This is how you know it was a taste of Hoboken. He used to run restaurants in, let's see, he worked at the Beverly Hilton Hotel for a while, put his own paintings on the wall, ran his handmade electric model trains along the bar. He had started out as a trucker in New Jersey, then opened a hot dog and clam stand. And when he came to Los Angeles, he worked at several other restaurants and finally founded his own. This is really the passing of a Los Angeles landmark.

Madam Chair, if I may, I wanted to indicate that Mrs. Brody was survived by her son, who's a teacher in the Los Angeles Unified School District, and two twin granddaughters.

Thank you.

I have an announcement. Mr. Bernson for an announcement. The Planning Language Management Committee will meet in about 10 minutes. Is that okay, members? All right. That's it.

Call the roll. thank you we're adjourned