Last Night @ City Council: Proposed Charter Changes and Watering Woes

Council Takes First Public Step in Placing City Charter Amendments on Ballot

The Council last night held the first of three special meetings required to get five mayor-proposed amendments of the city charter on the November ballot.

The first amendment proposes to establish a Citizens Redistricting Commission in order to address long-running gerrymandering of council district boundaries. Under the current system, city staff develops new district maps, which then go before the council for approval.

If passed, the new amendment would create a commission of citizens who would be charged with redrawing  districts that would replace the current ones in 2021. The districts would have to be geographically compact, utilize natural boundaries, and keep neighborhoods intact.

The city’s Cambodian community has been both a main target of discrimination in redistricting, and a leader in the fight for it, as was acknowledged last night by the mayor and the public.

In explaining the redistricting process, Councilmember Al Austin (CD-8) recollected how “contentious” it was the last time districts were redrawn in 2011.

“[There were] packed community meetings, there were yard signs mounted in several neighborhoods to protest the proposed maps. It left a lot of bitterness in many neighborhoods and communities. Particularly in the 7th and 8th Districts where I live.”

Austin believes a citizens commission will increase “confidence in city government.”

Several other jurisdictions have already instituted citizen redistricting commissions, including Sacramento, Oakland, Berkeley, Modesto, San Diego, Los Angeles County, and the State of California.

The origin of the proposed amendment came from recommendations made by Common Cause, said Austin. Common Cause is a nonpartisan good government group that, along with citizen redistricting, advocates for citizen oversight, more transparency, and limiting the influence of money in politics.

“Long Beach’s adoption of an independent redistricting commission would be a milestone,” said Sylvia Moor, a representative of California Common Cause. “After this commission is adopted, half of California’s ten largest cities will have citizens drawing and improving their council lines.”

Plans for how a citizens commission would be formed were left intentionally vague, according to Mayor Robert Garcia. In the coming months, good government organizations, lawmakers, and community groups will develop a model for voters to decide on.

Garcia said he “loves” the state’s model.

The state’s commission is composed of 14 members of varied ethnicities and geographic locations. It includes five Democrats, five Republicans, and four who decline to state their political persuasion. Applicants must prove qualifications and guarantee they have no conflicts of interest. They are then whittled down after interviews before being randomly selected by the state auditor.

Several public comments during the evening stressed the importance of inclusivity and diversity in the commission’s composition, and expressed concern over the opening portion of the amendment, which states all committee appointees will be made by the mayor and approved by the Council—reducing the body’s independence.

There were also questions from the community about the requirement in the proposed amendment to dissolve the commission after it has successfully redrawn the district maps instead of continuing to ensure all subsequent districting concerns can be dealt with.

The commission would also be required to hold only one public meeting before giving their recommendations to the Council.

The second amendment would create another citizens commission, this time centered on government ethics, overseeing issues such as conflicts of interest and campaign finance. As with the the redistricting commission, the mayor would make all appointments, later to be approved by the Council.

Public commenters again raised concerns about having the mayor appoint members to an ostensibly independent ethics commission meant to keep an eye on elected officials.

The mayor responded to public commenters for both the redistricting and ethics commissions, assuring them that he agreed with their concerns and “looked forward” to working with them.

A third amendment would modify term limits. Councilmembers and the mayor are currently restricted to serving two four-year terms in each respective office during their lifetime. The proposed amendment would extend that to three terms for each office.

The changes would also close what the mayor called a “loophole” that allows candidates unlimited write-in opportunities. As is, local write-ins appear on the ballot alongside all other candidates.

Public comment was mixed but because the language of this amendment seems unlikely to change, voters may have to wait to decide its fate in November.

In 2011, Long Beach voted down a similar term-limit proposal by a large margin.

A fourth amendment would clarify the city auditor’s investigatory scope to make sure it includes all city departments, boards, commissions, and offices.

The last proposed amendment to the city charter would consolidate the gas and water utilities under a newly formed Utilities Commission. Long Beach is the only city in California to not have both those utilities under the same umbrella.

Two more special meetings will be held to discuss the proposed charter amendments on July 17 and Aug. 7.

Watering Woes

Many green spaces across Long Beach are experiencing yellowing and browning due to drought conditions, and the Council last night deliberated for over 30 minutes on ways to address the problem.

The drought conditions are some of the most severe in recent memory. In the 2018 fiscal year, there was less than two inches of rainfall. The Parks, Recreation, and Marine Department’s (PRMD) irrigation budget of $2 million bought the equivalent of 21 inches of rain, but that still only amounted to about half of the 47 inches needed by plant life in the city to remain green.

Stephen Scott, the Interim Director of the PRMD, said added park acreage in the past few years has stretched the department’s budget.

The item was co-agendized by Councilmembers Dee Andrews (CD-6), Roberto Uranga (CD-7), and Rex Richardson (CD-9)

Uranga said he recently had to take a community event at Silverado Park indoors after seeing the conditions of the park. Andrews also commented that attendees of the Uptown Jazz Festival last week at Houghton Park complained about dirt and dust due to dead grass.

“The current shape of the parks is the worst I’ve seen them,” Garcia said.

Tomisin Oluwole
Coquette
Acrylic on canvas
18 x 24 inches

Click here to check out our interview with Tomisin Oluwole, a a literary and visual artist based in Long Beach.

Instead of gunking up our site with ads, we use this space to display and promote the work of local artists.

The mayor and Councilmember Stacy Mungo (CD-5) admonished the PRMD for not being more proactive in coming to the Council for the additional funding needed to keep the parks in tip-top shape.

“When I reached out to your office three weeks ago, it shouldn’t have been, ‘Well we stopped watering, or we reduced water,’” Mungo said.

Currently, the city spends $208 per resident on parks and recreation, compared to the national median of $105. This year, Long Beach was ranked 21st among the 100 largest U.S. cities in the Trust for Public Land’s ParkScore Index survey.

A 2016 park maintenance report from the city auditor found that “the antiquated irrigation system within many of our parks regularly failed” and that the cost of replacing it would be $113 million. It also found that one in four trees were dead or in poor condition.

The city irrigates 1,275 acres of parks and street medians, according to the report. Just over half of those acres are irrigated with reclaimed water.

Scott said the department had already identified $800,000 in cuts that they would be putting toward ramping up irrigation efforts this summer. Where those cuts will be made was not specified.

“The community will see greening in our park sites and open spaces over the coming days and weeks,” Scott said.

The Council unanimously voted to direct the city manager to put together a one-time Drought Response Plan.

Hiring City Employee Benefits Consultant Hits Speed Bumps

An item that was postponed at the request of Councilmember Suzie Price (CD-3) last council meeting (way back on May 22) came before the dais again last night. The matter was whether to renew a contract with Alliant Insurance Services, Inc. for consulting work on city employee benefits.

In the role, Alliant serves as something of a middle-person, negotiating rates with insurance carriers on behalf of the city. It’s those negotiated rates that seemed to be the biggest point of contention that caused an hour-long back-and-forth between the councilmembers.

They referenced two independent studies completed last year—by the Long Beach Police Officers Association (POA) and insurance broker Keenan and Associates—that found Alliant could have negotiated a cheaper rate for the city with health insurance carriers.

(These studies don’t appear to be readily available to the public.)

Consequently, several labor unions, including the POA, have questioned whether the city was receiving the best deal.

“Primarily, the outstanding issue is that the [POA] believes that the city should hire a secondary benefits consultant and the city should also cover the cost of that additional consultant,” said Alejandrina Basquez, the city’s Director of Human Resources. “My concern initially with that proposal is that the city would be paying for duplicate services.”

Basquez indicated that the Alliant had taken some of the suggestions from the studies, and believed there wasn’t much more in savings that could be achieved.

“Just because you believe a rate should be a certain amount, you don’t always get that rate from the carrier … I think we were all in agreement that Keenan pointed out some important things and Alliant agreed on those things as well,” she said.

Several councilmembers stressed that they were not criticizing the quality of Alliant’s work, but at the same time said they wanted to dispel any cause for concern the unions might have.

The proposed five-year contact with Alliant would be for $350,000 annually. The last contract with Alliant for similar services expired a month ago, and every month without a contract in place costs the city $11,200, according to Basquez.

Councilmembers Jeannine Pearce and Price expressed frustration over what they said were miscommunications between their offices, union leaders, and the Human Resources Department, which led to confusion over what the overall consensus on the contract was.

The Council eventually settled on a two-pronged compromise. They elected to explore the cost and duration of a city-auditor conducted analysis comparing the two studies and the proposed contract. They also asked the city manager to find funding for a potential third party analysis.

A report on what the best route to take will be presented at the next Council meeting.

Council Approves Health and Environmental Risk Assessments of the City

In a consent item, the Council gave the city manager the discretion to engage in any necessary agreements with the State of California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), to conduct health and environmental risk assessments throughout the city over the next two years. The exact locations of the assessments were not listed, nor what precisely would be studied. The OEHHA’s website states they focus on issues related to drinking water, pesticides, and mineral contamination.

HUD Money for Homeless Programs

The Council accepted $8.1 million in block grants for the Continuum of Care for Homeless Assistance Program. The program assists those experiencing homelessness to move into transitional and permanent housing. The program is funded through grants provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and is administered by the Long Beach Health and Human Services Department.

A renewal application for the funding was also approved.

Faceless Foreign Firm Kicks Out Long Beach Tenants

During general public testimony, three residents of an apartment complex in District 6 told the Council that a Japan-based investor firm, A.D.W. Group, recently bought their building and issued 60-day notices to all of the tenants. Jorge Rivera of Long Beach Residents Empowered also read a written testimony from an additional resident who was not able to make it to the meeting.

Joe Brizzolara contributed to this report.

Follow @LBCMtgNotes on Twitter for live updates during every City Council meeting.

Please support local grassroots media by subscribing to FORTHE.