Open Up Long Beach

Get Ready for the Push for a Private Public Partnership In Long Beach to Rebuild a Civic Center -- Experts Say These Arrangements May Be New Subprime Problem that Caused Mortgage Meltdown

2013-05-10T07:04:00.000-07:00

Cartagena is one of the Colombian cities whose water supply is provided by a mixed public-private company. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

There are many ways in which the public sector can work with the private sector for the benefit of both. But the push across the US to form "public-private partnerships" or "P3s" is raising concern of some who see this new way to finance public infrastructure as the next "subprime" problem that caused the mortgage meltdown in this county.

Our current Mayor and some of the City Council are supportive of possibly rebuilding the current City Hall and Main Library using a P3.

Before this goes too far, the public needs to know about P3s and why they aren't all they cracked up to be.

In his paper: "The Political‐Economics of Private Infrastructure Finance: The New Sub Prime
Elliott Sclar, Professor of Urban Planning, Director, Center for Sustainable Urban Development, The Earth Institute at Columbia University (http://csud-admin.ei.columbia.edu/sitefiles/file/ACSP%20Paper_final.pdf) notes that the same financial institutions which were part of the economic crash caused in part by subprime lending have:

"fallen in love with public infrastructure. They're smitten by the rich cash flows that roads, bridges, airports, parking garages, and shipping ports generate—and the monopolistic advantages that keep those cash flows as steady as a beating heart. Firms are so enamored, in fact, that they're beginning to consider infrastructure a brand new asset class in itself. (Thornton, 2007)"

Sclar notes that this has negative impact on "democracy." Sclar writes: "When infrastructure is
privatized (or corporatized), the decisions about its size, shape and placement are driven by market demand. The private partners are interested in elements of infrastructure that can yield the longest and strongest streams of privately capturable revenue not the ones that yield the largest public benefits. "

A much more disturbing article on the negative impact of P3s on "democracy" was penned by Ellen Dannin in "Crumbling Infrastructure, Crumbling Democracy: Infrastructure Privatization Contracts and Their Effects on State and Local Governance "(http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1061&context=njlsp)

Dannin reviewed numerous public-private-partnership agreements and found:

"Our decision-making processes and ways of thinking about privatization and
infrastructure are proving unequal to the complexity and long-term effects of transferring public infrastructure to private hands. It is urgent that we change the terms of this discussion quickly, before contracts have locked away so much of our infrastructure that we have can no longer make critically important policy decisions outside the straitjacket contract terms impose on our legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government.

We must, therefore, replace our constricted focus on “dollars and driving, public versus private” with appropriate substantive and procedural principles and processes in order to achieve our articulated goals. Issues that have emerged as important to this discussion include (1) protecting the public welfare; (2) ensuring value for money; (3) taking all contingencies into account; (4) establishing principles to justify the inclusion of each contract term; (5) demonstrating the superiority of privatization over public provision; and (6) establishing a process that ensures all relevant information is presented and properly evaluated. Each of these principles is easy to articulate and should have broad—but not unanimous—support. The difficulty will be in unpacking their content and identifying the contentious issues each presents. Achieving those goals requires a participatory and open-ended process, one that extends into the future. What can be done here is to lay the groundwork by briefly articulating issues related to each of these principles, examining pending proposals concerning infrastructure privatization, and, finally, considering whether those proposals provide a satisfactory way to deal with the complex issues that lie at the intersection of public and private provision of infrastructure."

Dannin (and I echo her sentiments) concludes:

"Political leaders ignore the public interest at their peril. Reactions discussed throughout this Article have shown that when the citizenry has been kept in the dark and when the public interest has been ignored, people have been deeply indignant. They are likely to be concerned that a fair process be used in making such an important decision. It is possible that people may decide that privatizing public infrastructure is the best alternative for many reasons. They may also decide to reject agreements that put infrastructure, paid for with public funds, under private control. People may also reject contracts that give such strong protection for contractor revenues and place limits on governmental decision making. Without information, however, people cannot meaningfully participate in these important decisions."

Before the City of Long Beach goes any further with discussions about using a P3 for our City Hall and Main Library -- there needs to be extensive public discussion to make sure it is clear that we know what we would be getting our City into if we went down that road.

Why Agenda Item on Using Outside Experts to Analyze City Payroll Systems

2013-04-08T21:51:00.000-07:00

Since joining City Council in 2006, I have pushed consistently for City Management to procure an automated time keeping system: A system that makes city employees check in every day when they come and when they leave. Most major organizations that employ close to 5,000 have a system. The City of Long Beach does not.

Such a system gives an employer important information -- such as who is at work and who isn't; who works their full shift and who doesn't. It also protects the employer because it documents when lunches are taken -- failure to do so puts the company at risk for a law suit from many employees who contend they never received their lunch break. (see below under related articles).

This automated system also gives the employer the ability to make schedules and assignments.; to track vacation and sick leave, etc. Employees are given a card to swipe or a code to use on the telephone. The system tracks work and ensures the employees are actually there at work doing their jobs for the number of hours they claims.

The City of Long Beach does not have such a system. Time keeping is done on green sheets of paper each week that are hand-written and given to staff whose job it is to put the information into a computer program.
The information is then sent to a payroll company that processes paychecks.

If we were to have an earthquake tomorrow. No one could tell how many city employees were actually at work.

That is insane in this day and age of technology.

Finally a year or so ago, City management put out a request for proposals for a human resources system. What they got back were program after program that offered numerous bells and whistles. Sadly, the City had not clearly indicated what it actually was seeking and so it received proposals that were all over the place. Consequently, the City pulled the RFP and nothing was selected and the manual costly system stayed in place.

ADP Government Services were one of the responders to the RFP and contact my council office saying that I should know what happened in the process and why there were serious problems. I met in my council office with two ADP representatives who explained that it was clear to them the the City did not have the expertise to clearly specify what kind of system was needed and that moreover, the City could not tell how much current systems used by the City cost. The reps felt (and I agreed) it was important that the City know what our current system costs to determine how to select and new one that should save the city money. However, it you don't have a benchmark, you can't set a goal.

ADP Government Services reps indicated that they contract with another company who can do a study to determine the "total cost of ownership" of current systems. In other words, they can determine how much per employee it is costing the city per month to track employees' work, to manually input time sheets and then to get a paycheck processed.

I sent this information to the City Manager and I did not hear back. So I met with Councilman Gary DeLong and told him of the possibility for the City to get an analysis done so we could determine a benchmark as we go out for a new system. Councilman DeLong and I met again with ADP Government Services and city staff from Financial Management, Information Technology and the City Manager's office. It was understood from that meeting that City staff would work with ADP to have the no cost analysis done.

Several weeks later, I chaired a meeting of the Civil Service and Personnel Committee and asked for an update. I was told that our Financial Management Department had indicated it would not participate in this analysis.

Councilmember Gary DeLong and I decided to place the issue on the Council agenda so that the entire City Council could decide should the city avail itself of a no cost analysis of the costs of our current systems.
City management thereupon (that's a big legal transition word) went to the City Attorney and prevailed on him to write a memo in opposition of the proposed analysis on the basis that it would supposedly give ADP an advantage on future RFPs.

Really? This is very interesting in light of City Management's recent actions: 1) without an RFP it used Management Partners to identify efficiencies needed and then asked for $500,000 for Management Partners to do a more thorough study -- all without ever asking for other companies to bid on this effort; 2) without an RFP it spent $80,000 for a "feasibility study" of a tunnel between the new courthouse and the jail. It gave that work to AECOM which had already examined this issue some time ago and then the City Manager gave AECOM another $986,000 to design the tunnel (that would not be built) that AECOM had studied and found "feasible." There wasn't an RFP or any other company given a chance to bid on the design.

So let's be clear on what Mr. DeLong and I are proposing:

The City needs an analysis by experts in the field of human resources systems to determine what it is costing the city currently to process time keeping, payroll, leaves, vacations, etc.
ADP Government services will contract with a third party to conduct the analysis. All the information obtained will be public and available to the City as well as other companies who bid to provide the actual new systems that will be needed.
The City is under no obligation to select ADP for any system purchase.

Also full disclosure:

I have no financial interest in ADP Government Services.
I have never received nor would accept any political contribution from anyone associated with ADP.
All my meetings with ADP representatives have been posted on my calendar and held in City Hall.
I don't really care which outside experts conduct an analysis of our current systems and how much they are costing the taxpayer. I just want it done so we can start implementing costs savings and efficiencies into City Hall that should have been done years ago.

P.S. No one inside City Hall can tell me how much it costs the city/taxpayers to keep track of employees' time and to process paychecks.

Time for Long Beach to Ban Campaign Contributions from Contractors and Disclose Private Texts with Lobbyists During Council

2013-04-01T01:29:00.001-07:00

California Watch (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Long Beach Needs to Ban Contributions From Lobbyists and Contractors, Make Elected Officials Disclose Conversations Before Vote Including Texts and Emails During Council and Disclose Private Text Messages or Other Electronic Communications About City Business

by Councilwoman Gerrie Schipske

As part of “Open Up Long Beach” – a project to make the City of Long Beach more open and transparent, I monitor the efforts of organizations that are working on transparency in government, such as the Sunlight Foundation. Recently, that organization announced that the District Court in the District of Columbia upheld the long time ban on political contributions from any person negotiating or performing a federal government contract stating:

The ban on such contributions guards against “pay-to-play” arrangements, in which people seeking federal contracts provide financial support to political candidates in return for their help securing government business. It also protects such contractors from pressure to contribute or risk losing their work.

The Court further stated that it was not the “courts’ practice to “‘second-guess a … [legislative] determination as to the need for prophylactic measures where corruption is the evil feared’.”

It seems then it might be time for the City of Long Beach to enact a similar contribution ban. Conceivably, that ban could be applied to those who seek approval for a development, an entertainment permit or those who are lobbying for a specific ordinance. Some would argue that it should extend to employee unions who are under contract with the City.

I was particularly taken back when year ago on February 14, the City Council voted on whether or not to ban operation of medical marijuana collectives.

Why? Because in excess of $8,000 had poured into the campaign and officeholder accounts of several council members from businesses and lobbyists representing the medical marijuana industry. Now that may not sound like a lot of money. But considering that contributions are limited to $350 for a campaign and $500 for an officeholder account, this is a considerable sum.

City Attorney Robert Shannon told the City Council over the past several months that we needed to ban the operation of medical marijuana collectives because the court ruled on a case specifically involving the City of Long Beach’s regulation of medical marijuana collectives. The court held that the City cannot regulate that which is illegal. Marijuana is still illegal under federal law. A ban not only impacts access to medical marijuana by residents but stops an extremely lucrative revenue stream for those who operate the collectives. Some of these lobbyists who gave contributions also sent Council members language they wanted inserted into the City’s ordinance – a fact never disclosed during the discussion or the vote.

Long Beach should handle this situation in one of two ways: Either ban the contributions from anyone who is negotiating with the City or doing work for the City and/or require the elected official to disclose before voting at City Council if he or she has received a contribution and a statement that he or she does not believe there is a conflict of interest. Plain and simple.

Several cities have enacted laws which disqualify a council member from participating in decisions affecting his or her campaign contributors. These laws disqualify the council member from participating in certain proceedings if the official has received campaign contributions from a party, participant or their agents within the 12 months preceding the decision. They also require disclosure on the record of the proceeding of all campaign contributions received from these persons during that period. In addition, these laws prohibit solicitation or receipt of campaign contributions during such proceedings, and for three months after the decision, from parties, participants or their agents.

The voters of the City of Los Angeles enacted changes to their charter in 2011 that create new campaign contribution restrictions on contractors bidding on contracts with the City. They have prohibited making campaign contributions to any elected City office, candidate for elected City office, or City committee controlled by an elected City official or candidate if the contract requires approval of the Council and the contract requires approval by the elected City office that is held or sought by the person to whom the contribution would be given. (In LA, the ban starts with contracts worth $100,000 or more.)

It is time that Long Beach strengthened our campaign finance laws by either prohibiting campaign contributions from those trying to do or actively doing business with the City and by requiring elected officials to publicly disclose before they take a vote whether or not they have received any contributions from anyone benefiting from a council vote.

Additionally, just this week the City Council of San Jose unanimously passed an ordinance requiring themselves to disclose if a lobbyist contacts a councilmember by text, email or handwritten note during a public meeting and to announce the identity of the lobbyist and the subject of the communication before it comes to a vote.

Another major development regarding texts and emails came last week with a court ruling that San Jose City Councilmembers’ private text messages, emails and other electronic communications about city affairs must be made public.

The City Council can pass these legislative items to increase openness and transparency or the voters can gather signatures to place a package of reforms on the ballot in the next general election. In either case, Long Beach needs to move forward on this issue.

Schipske's Open Up Long Beach Efforts Highlighted in Statewide Report

2013-03-14T04:13:00.001-07:00

California Forward, a nonpartisan, non profit organization whose mission is to bring government closer to the people has highlighted the efforts of Long Beach Councilwoman Gerrie Schipske in its “State of Transparency in California: 2013” report.

The report, which is an analysis that explores the core issues of governmental accountability and transparency in California, was released this week to coincide with Sunshine Week, which is an initiative promoting dialogue about the importance of having an open government and being able to access public information. Three cities are highlighted as “City Hall Success Stories in Public Engagement” in the report. The first story discusses the efforts of Councilwoman Gerrie Schipske to make Long Beach more open, transparent and accountable:

Long Beach Launches “Open Up Long Beach” In January of 2012 Councilwoman Gerrie Schipske of the City of Long Beach took public education and transparency efforts one step further. Her initiative “Open Up Long Beach” provides residents with increased access to the city’s every day affairs and includes opportunities to learn about what individual council members are working on, what committees they sit on and what projects they spearhead. The project combines an online resource with “Open Up Long Beach” community meetings.

“I am very honored that California Forward has acknowledged ‘Open Up Long Beach’,” says Schipske. “I agree that with so many difficult decisions facing local government that the demand and need for transparency is great. I am doing what I can to make certain that Long Beach is open, transparent and accountable.”

Schipske frequently writes on her two blogs (www.openuplongbeach.com and www.gerrieschipske.com) , Facebook and Belmont Shore Patch on the issues before city council and posts city documents that provide readers with background information on the issues. She also sends email alerts on events and issues and has launched a “behind the scenes” tour of city operations to give residents a closer look at how their government and its agencies operate. To date, Open Up Long Beach has visited: the oil islands, SERRF waste to energy plant, the Emergency Operations Center, the Long Beach Health and Human Services department and laboratories, and the inter workings of the Aquarium of the Pacific. Schipske was the first councilmember to post her schedule on line and to provide a 24/7 problem/complaint system on the city website.

The complete “State of Transparency in California:2013” report can be downloaded by clicking http://www.cafwd.org/reporting/entry/the-state-of-transparency-in-california-2013

International Sunshine Week -- Making Government Transparent

2013-03-14T02:48:00.000-07:00

Sunshine Week (Photo credit: Free Press Pics)

Government transparency is the cornerstone of democracy. As such, it is our collective responsibility to protect our right to a government that is open, and whose business is the business of the people it serves. Similarly, it is the responsibility of state and local elected officials to work to actively increase the public’s access to public information, to provide opportunities for citizen participation in key decision-making processes and report the results of those decisions back out to constituents.

Governments that create pathways for citizens’ effective engagement and participation typically learn that doing so, enables them to enhance their own performance; by using public feedback to guide their decisions, government leaders can fund and implement programs and services that are reflective of the public’s interest and that are highly impactful at improving their overall quality of life.

I am writing today because this week is International Sunshine Week—an initiative dedicated to educating the public about the importance of open government. As such, I would like to reassert my commitment to fostering a transparent government.

Here in Long Beach, I have been working to identify solutions for increasing government transparency and exploring opportunities that will encourage collaboration and innovation. In January of last year, I led the launch of “Open Up Long Beach,” a government transparency website that aims to provide residents with access to important information, including city budget documents, council agenda items, City departments, and other important resources.

My council colleagues and I have also initiated several online applications that serve as dynamic two-way communication channels between residents and city staff and implemented new open government policies, requiring that all city contracts be posted online.

California Forward, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization, is just one of the many groups throughout the state that are working to bring government closer to the people. This week, they are launching their “Government Transparency Portal,” an online tool that residents can use to access information about the inner workings of their local government as well as others throughout the state.

With the increased use of technology and the internet as well as of dozens of other online innovations, there’s no reason not to be more open and transparent, especially now in the digital age. I support open, transparent local government, and I encourage you to do the same.

Politician Sets up Bogus Committee for State Treasurer to Have Slush Fund

2013-02-09T12:19:00.000-08:00

Money for Nothing (film) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Imagine getting a solicitation to contribute to a campaign for State Treasurer and then finding out the politician had no intentions of running for State Treasurer but wanted some way to get funds that he could use on another campaign which would result in going around campaign limits!

Well it seems this is all too common. While we have specific limitations on how much an individual can contribute to a campaign there is this gimmick going around in some political circles where politicians set up a number of campaign accounts and solicit contributions for all "campaigns" and then "donate" the funds from the campaign they are not pursuing to the real campaign they are. This allows donors to essentially give twice -- once to the phony campaign and once to the real. Consequently, this has created large political slush funds. But because these campaign reports are filed separately it is difficult for the public to track the double contributions.

This practice was highlighted in the Sacramento Bee as it detailed how Assemblyman Dan Logue set up a committee for State Treasurer and then admitted to the press, that he wasn't really running for State Treasurer but in fact raising money for other campaigns. (Most politicians never publicly admit that they didn't have a chance in hell of running for a statewide office because after all it might stop the contributions.)

We need to stop this practice because it creates political slush funds and makes a mockery out of campaign contribution limits. Most importantly it fails to provide the public with transparency about campaign finance.

http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2013/02/dan-logue-eyes-2014-treasurer-run-leno-goes-for-lt-gov-in-2018.html

Selling Public Assets Need Public Discussion

2013-02-05T17:48:00.000-08:00

I objected to the City Council going into closed session regarding the potential sale of City Hall, the Main Library and the old courthouse, on the basis that the Brown Act is very specific about the conditions under which discussion about real property can take place in closed session.

Section 54956.8. Closed session; Real estate negotiations reads in pertinent part:

“Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a legislative body of a local agency may hold a closed session with its negotiator prior to the purchase, sale, exchange, or lease of real property by or for the local agency to grant authority to its negotiator regarding the price and terms of payment for the purchase, sale, exchange, or lease.

However, prior to the closed session, the legislative body of the local agency shall hold an open and public session in which it identifies the real property or real properties which the negotiations may concern and the person or persons with whom its negotiator may negotiate.”

The City has not identified the persons or persons with whom its negotiator may negotiate and therefore I believe this should not go into closed session and would ask that this be laid over for a public session at which the Council can publicly discuss what it is exactly being proposed for the City property.

A recent Attorney General Opinion narrows what can be discussed in closed session concerning real estate to price and terms: “If local agencies need a ‘rule of reason’ allowing them the flexibility secretly to discuss all aspects of any project involving some transfer of an interest in real property, they must seek such authority in new legislation. Otherwise their ‘rule of reason’ is precisely what is withheld in the Brown Act’s preamble as ‘the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know.’”

The taxpayers deserve to know what their elected officials have in mind for their public assets. Additionally, in this economic time when property values are at an all time low, it seems unwise to be placing property on the market. It also seems unwise at a time the City cannot properly fund police and just recently removed a fire engine from Belmont Shore, that it would embark on buying itself a new City Hall. Taxpayers have the right to know in open, public sessions what is being proposed by City management and to fully engage in any discussion that would impact the decision. To date, taxpayers have not been given this opportunity.

Closed Session Will Consider Long Beach Civic Center Revamp - Gazettes.com: Government

2013-02-04T19:36:00.001-08:00

Folks, this issue does not belong in a closed session. These assets belong to the entire city not just the Mayor and a City Council. The issue of what to do with the current property -- which has been allowed to be run down and infested by transients, needs a full public hearing -- not the behind the scenes dealings.

Closed Session Will Consider Long Beach Civic Center Revamp - Gazettes.com: Government

US Dept of Energy Showcases SERRF Plant in Long Beach

2013-01-13T12:15:00.002-08:00

Having just gone behind the scenes with Long Beach residents at the Southeast Resource Recovery Facility (SERRF), a recycling and solid waste-to-energy plant, I was pleased to see that when one “googles” SERRF that you find a case study on the US Dept of Energy’s website about the project.

SERRF took ten years to come on line in 1988 and is similar to plants in Germany and Japan that take waste (garbage) and burn it, clean up the gases produced and recycle the ash produced and convert the steam generated into electricity which is sold to Southern California Edison.

Our tour was amazing. It began with a detailed briefing of how the plant works, its funding, its future. SERRF processes approximately 1,290 tons of municipal solid waste each day, generating up to 38 MW of electricity. It also serves as the site where law enforcement can dispose of narcotics.

SERRF is owned by a Joint Powers Authority formed by the City of Long Beach and the Los Angeles County Sanitation District No. 2.

SERRF allows a reduction in garbage being placed in landfills (Puente Hills and in Orange County) which in turn keeps charges to consumers lower than if landfills were used.

Garbage trucks dump their loads and then e-waste or what is called white goods – refrigerators and washing machines are sorted out and the scrap is sold. The remaining waste is incinerated and the toxic gases and residue are scrubbed. (I saw the furnace and it probably is the closest thing on earth to what hell might look like.) The resulting ash is hauled to the landfills and used as pavement for the roads that go into the landfill. In other countries, the ash is used to pave all streets.

The steam generates electricity which is sold to Southern California Edison. Unfortunately, SERRF does not yet qualify for a non polluting source of electricity which would then qualify the plant to receive carbon credits.

SERRF processes garbage. Recycled goods are picked up at the curbside by a private contractor in Long Beach – Waste Management—and taken to another site where they are sorted and sold to recycling companies.

It was a very interesting tour and briefing. I appreciate the residents who took time to learn the behind the scenes of this important City program. More to come in the months ahead with Open Up Long Beach. (see www.openuplongbeach.com )

Council members Lowenthal and Neal are asking the Council to support new parcel tax: What do you think?

2013-01-02T15:50:00.000-08:00

Council members Suja Lowenthal and Steven Neal have placed an item on next Council meeting's agenda calling for the entire City Council to support a parcel tax being proposed by Los Angeles County staff. The parcel tax would be assessed on every property in LA County and would fund and establish an annual clean water fee to fund the Clean Water, Clean Beaches Program (www.lacountycleanwater.org).

Funds will be used by cities and the County in the same cities and watersheds where they are collected. The City public property is estimated to be assessed $1.6 million with this tax and the City is estimated to receive $5.1 million from the tax.

You need to know that the proposed tax has not been examined in detail by the City Council. We have not been given details why the amounts to be assessed were set at those levels and what other measures could be taken by LA County to clean up the storm water.

No one is against clean water. What I find objectionable is that without examination of this tax and discussion about what other measures could be taken to clean up the storm water problem without taxing residents and businesses and government, the City Council is being encouraged to jump on board a proposal "as is."

Additionally, what was not disclosed in this council agenda item is the fact that our own LA County Supervisor Don Knabe and the Long Beach Unified School District are opposed to the measure.

I say wait until the LA County Board of Supervisors holds its public meeting on this issue on January 15th before the Council votes. We need to hear the input of our residents. We also need to find out what the final version of this proposal actually will be if placed before the voters. We really need to know what we are doing before we jump on this bandwagon.

Before you answer my poll on this item, you need to read several documents that explain what is being proposed by LA County and being asked for support by two council members.

Click here to read these important documents. Council agenda item, FAQ about proposal, Notice of proposed tax.

Let me know what do you think about paying for a parcel tax by clicking here.

Sincerely,

Gerrie

Gerrie Schipske

P.S. LA County Board of Supervisors will hold a public meeting to listen to residents about this proposed tax at 9:30 a.m. in the Board of Supervisors Hearing Room, Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration, 500 West Temple Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012.

A Notice of Public Hearing has been mailed to all property owners within the Los Angeles County Flood Control District. At the public hearing, the Board of Supervisors will receive oral and written testimony about the proposed clean water fee. Any property owner may testify or file a written protest with the Executive Officer of the Board of Supervisors at any time before the end of the public hearing. A written protest must identify the parcel address and assessor's parcel number, and must be signed by the property owner or an authorized representative.

Letters may be addressed to:
Executive Officer
Board of Supervisors
P.O. Box 866006
Los Angeles, CA 90086

Long Beach Residents Need to Know What Potential Liability Is on Telephone Tax Case

2012-12-19T00:58:00.002-08:00

The Sacramento Bee has just disclosed that a case against the City of Long Beach could possibly cost millions if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the plaintiff. (http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2012/12/long-beach-phone-tax-case-tests-taxpayers-rights.html#storylink=misearch)

I asked for this information several months ago when I discovered that the City of Los Angeles had publicly acknowledged in its budget statement that a similar suit had been filed against the City of Los Angeles and that the potential liability could be up to $750 million.

The suit is about the City collecting a telephone users tax despite a federal telephone excise tax being eliminated.

To put this in the proper perspective, $750 million equals 17% of the City of Los Angeles' year’s General Fund.

In both the LA and Long Beach cases, the plaintiffs are suing for refunds for residents claiming that the taxes were illegally collected by the City.

I asked for information on how much at risk the City of Long Beach is because of the suit against us by John McWilliams.

I still believe the residents of Long Beach need to know what potentially is coming our way. Last time I asked for the information it was put into a closed session. I think now that everyone who reads the Sacramento Bee knows about this case, it is time to let residents of Long Beach know what to expect.

Come where few have gone in Long Beach

2012-12-12T01:01:00.001-08:00

Join me on January 11 to go behind the scenes at the SERRF plant -- the place where Long Beach turns your trash into electricity.

This is part of my series of behind the scenes look into how the City of Long Beach operates.

Click here and sign up today for the tour.

Inside look at LB Health and Human Services Department

2012-11-14T22:06:00.000-08:00

Tonight we went behind the scenes to look at what the Long Beach Health and Human Services Department does for the City of Long Beach.

Established in 1906, the City of Long

Beach Department of Health and Human Services (Health Department) is over 100 years old.

Over the last century, much has

changed yet much has remained the same. Our primary emphasis continues to be the control of communicable disease, as well

as providing health education and

immunizations to the public.

The years have made public health a much more complex discipline. Living in a large urban environment, diseases such as HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis, and human and social

service issues make our role in protecting the health of the entire community even more critical.

The Health Department is one of only three city-operated local health jurisdictions in

California (along with Pasadena and Berkeley). Local provision of public health services allows the Health Department to tailor its programs to meet the specific public health and human service needs of the residents of the City of Long Beach.

Public health, when it is functioning properly, is largely invisible. Therefore, the understanding and support of the general public, policymakers and healthcare professionals is crucial to the success of public health activities. The mission of a local health department is to take leadership in assuring a healthy community. This is accomplished by promoting, protecting and preserving health through advocacy and organized community efforts. In Long Beach, the Health Department contributes to the health of the community by promoting the prevention of disease and injury for all residents.

Health Department

LAO Estimates LB Courthouse Will Cost $160 Million More than It Could Have If Private-Public Partnership Not Used

2012-11-10T22:31:00.000-08:00

The Legislative Analyst's Office in Sacramento has issued a scathing report about the model used to finance and build the Long Beach Courthouse. The courthouse project entails using a private developer to finance, design, build, operate, and maintain the Long Beach courthouse over a 35–year period in exchange for payments from the state totaling $2.3 billion.

The LAO found that had the courts not used the private-public partnership that it: would result in the cost of the Long Beach courthouse project being less—by as much as $160 million in net present value terms—in the long run under a traditional procurement approach than the chosen P3 approach.

The LAO reports also provides a chart listing the problems with the LB Courthouse project:

See the entire report: Maximizing State Benefits From Public–Private Partnerships

But the bad news doesn't end here

An article on the Judicialcouncilwatcher has more bad news about the LB Courthouse: “This whole story of the Long Beach Courthouse and the spending of SB1407 bond funds by the AOC has legs” the note concludes, “as bad as you think it is now, it is far worse than anyone can possibly imagine”

First payment is due on LB Courthouse -- Who Will Pay

Also on Judicialcouncilwatcher is an article by Capitol Accounts reporter Cheryl Miller pointing out the current financial problems related to the LB Courthouse that will not open for another year:

The bells and whistles reflect the hype over the judiciary’s first attempt at a public-private financed courthouse project on the site. Private investors provided the capital to build the 31-courtroom downtown facility in a scheme that promised a cheaper building delivered faster. The public will cover the costs over a 35-year lease-to-own plan.

Problem is, that first bill is coming due soon and nobody seems sure who is going to pay it. That could spell trouble for other courthouse projects planned around the state.

In an Aug. 20 letter to Interim Administrative Director of the Courts Jody Patel, state Senate Budget Chairman Mark Leno warned judiciary leaders not to look to the state for help when the first service fee for the Long Beach courthouse must be paid in the next fiscal year.

Lessons Long Beach Should Take Away From This

The spin on the streets and backrooms in Long Beach is that the City should enter into a similar private-public partnership with a developer who would demolish City Hall and the current courthouse and build a grand, new Civic Center which the City would lease to own. (Let's leave the argument aside about why we can ill afford to build a new city hall when we can't pay for enough police...)

Well, if the LAO is correct, and government has a long ways to go before it knows fully what it is doing in entering a public-private partnership -- then don't you think the City should wait before we jump on this band wagon any time soon?

A Tunnel Not Built -- But a Million Dollars Spent

The news about the overall courthouse project is sobering. I am still trying to get the official answer from City Management to, why if a tunnel was needed to transport prisoners between the Long Beach jail and the new courthouse, the tunnel was not included in the current plans (and now certainly should be included with the $160 million dollars extra this project is costing).

The other questions not yet answered are:
1) who did the City pay $1 million dollars in oil monies to do a feasibility study about building the tunnel (a study that was supposedly done a considerable time after construction on the courthouse had been underway);

2) why did it cost $1 million to find out that a tunnel was not feasible;

3) what did the City receive for the $1 million dollars (that could have been better spent on police, fire, recreation, libraries, streets, sidewalks....); and

4) where is the $ 1million dollar study/report that apparently concluded the tunnel wasn't feasible?

Just as the entire courthouse project was found not to be "transparent" -- it appears that the issue of a City of Long Beach financed tunnel connecting the courthouse is lacking in transparency as well. Taxpayers deserve to know how the City of Long Beach spent $1 million dollars and more importantly, why it spent the money.

Police Dept Releases Quarterly Crime Stats

2012-11-01T14:13:00.002-07:00

The following the Long Beach Police Department crime stats for the past quarter. Police Stats Qtrly_00000

Get Inside -- Join Me for an Inside Look At the City's Dept of Health and Human Services

2012-10-30T08:03:00.000-07:00

Click on link to register

http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Get-Inside----Open-Up-Long-Beach-Look-at-City-Health-Department.html?soid=1101716177586&aid=y54O_a_rp9E

Disclosing what really happened in closed session on Schroeder Army Hall

2012-10-04T13:21:00.001-07:00

Schipske Gets Permission from City Attorney to Disclose Closed Session on Schroeder Army Hall After Councilmember Patrick O’Donnell Releases Inaccurate Description of What Took Place

Long Beach, CA – October 4, 2012 -- 5^th District Councilwoman Gerrie Schipske today issued the following statement concerning discussions and action which took place in closed session concerning the transfer of military property (Schroeder Army Hall) to the City of Long Beach for use as a police substation. Schipske notes that she conferred with City Attorney Robert Shannon and was told she is free to disclose the action the City Council took:

“I am saddened by Councilman O’Donnell’s inaccurate and inflammatory comments about what occurred in closed session. The motion that he voted against included moving the homeless facility to be operated

by MHA away from homes in Artcraft Manor which is in the 5^th District. Staff had offered that site because of Council concerns that another site be found for MHA and council by a vote of 8-1 (with O’Donnell voting against) directed staff that placing MHA on the southeast corner of Schroeder Hall up against the wall that separates the property from the homes would not be compatible with the neighborhood.

Why O’Donnell chose to distort what took place in closed session is anyone’s guess. But it is clear he issued the press statement to distract from the fact he was the only councilmember who apparently didn’t mind putting MHA on the Schroeder Hall site right beside the neighborhood. He also voted against directing City management to develop restrictions for use of any site by MHA and for directing the City Manager to continue working with MHA to find an alternative site.

In order to be open and transparent to the public about what really occurred, I would like to detail what the order in which discussions occurred in closed session yesterday when the City Council met to discuss the status of the US Army and US HUD’s transfer of military property at Schroeder Army Hall located at Willow Street and Grand Avenue.

City management briefed us on the fact that the federal agencies want the City to move forward to take the property. In order to do so, the Council had to indicate on which site the homeless services provider (Mental Health America) would be located. Federal law requires the City of Long Beach to accommodate a homeless services provider in order for the City to receive Schroeder Army Hall.

In a prior City Council closed session, the Council unanimously directed the City Manager to meet with MHA to discuss the offer of cash in lieu of property so that MHA could go to another location other than on or near the site of Schroeder Army Hall.

The City Manager reported to the Council that he had met and talked with MHA and that there was an expressed interest in cash in lieu of property, provided that the City could ensure that if MHA bought another property they would be allowed to locate there. There was discussion about a potential piece of property which could be purchased by MHA and the City Manager was requested to continue talking with MHA about moving from the Schroeder Army Hall area.

At no time did anyone present in the closed session state that “negotiations had been brought to a halt” or that MHA “has changed their minds about protecting our community.” In fact, the City Manager continues to talk with MHA about alternative sites (actually talking with MHA yesterday prior to O’Donnell’s news release) and the City Council actually engaged in lengthy discussion during closed session about how the neighborhood would be protected including stating that the MHA site should not be located near homes.

Management then presented to the City Council two locations for MHA: 1) behind the Long Beach Public Health Department which provides a buffer from the neighborhood or 2) on the southeast section of Schroeder Army Hall up against the wall directly adjacent to homes.

As the first Councilmember to speak on this issue in the closed session, I strongly expressed my disagreement with any location that is directly behind residences and then stated that I was concerned it had not been made clear with the US Army, US HUD or MHA that a list of restrictions would be placed on any location MHA would occupy and that fact needed to be discussed prior to any EIR or lease.

A discussion continued with several Council members participating, including O’Donnell and me, that those restrictions would include that all clients would have to be transported via van and not public transportation and that the facility would operate from 8 am until 4pm. City staff was directed that these restrictions need to be discussed with MHA prior to the approval of an EIR. Staff indicated that they understood and that any restriction proposed would have to be agreed by MHA and would be included in the EIR for public comment.

Staff also iterated that in order for Schroeder Army Hall to be reused as an eastside police substation and MHA to operate a homeless treatment center, that there would be extensive community meetings on all issues concerning the properties and that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would need to be approved.

Council continued to ask how legally the City could enforce any restrictions so that should an alternative site not be found, MHA would make certain that their operations did not impact the neighborhood. The City Attorney’s staff responded that MHA would have to abide by the terms of the lease and the City could enforce the lease.

The vote taken by the City Council – which O’Donnell voted against included: (1) Authorize the initiation of the EIR ; (2) direct staff to continue to identify other potential alternate sites, and (3) direct staff to prepare an initial list of operating restrictions applicable to the MHA facility, no matter the ultimate location.

After the vote, the City Manager again contacted MHA about seeking an alternative site. I am hopeful that O’Donnell’s inaccurate and inflammatory comments will not derail the progress that has been made in working with MHA to find a more suitable location and our efforts to protect the neighborhood.”

Addendum: Mr. O’Donnell states that the proposed MHA facility will be on “City land near the Stearns Park area” -- this is very misleading. The proposed location on Burnett is 1.4 miles from the nearest point of Stearns Park and is sheltered by an industrial area.

Below is O'Donnell's statement. Feel free to compare:

O’Donnell Statement on Schroeder Hall:

Service Provider Backs Out of Efforts to Protect Neighborhood

Protracted Battle to Move Homeless Center May Be Over

Behind-the-scenes efforts, which may have moved a mentally ill homeless facility away from eastside neighborhoods, have been halted due to a service provider’s unwillingness to move forward.

For the last several years, the Long Beach City Council has been debating a proposal to open a treatment center for the mentally ill homeless adjacent to eastside neighborhoods. Councilmember Patrick O'Donnell has been a strong opponent of the project, believing that placing it near a residential neighborhood was "not a good fit," in his words. The proposal resulted from the City's planned acquisition of the nearby Schroeder Hall Army Facility and a correlating requirement that the City provide a homeless accommodation as an in-lieu payment for the Army property. The Council voted, with O’Donnell dissenting, to move forward with the process of siting a facility on City land near the Stearns Park area. Behind the scenes discussions had taken place in which the service provider, Mental Health America (MHA) would receive cash in lieu of the property. The City Council has been apprised that the discussions have been brought to a halt by the service provider, effectively ending efforts to place the facility elsewhere.
In response to MHA’s recent actions, O’Donnell has released the following statement:

"The proposed location is not fair to the nearby residents and not fair to the homeless. We all have a duty to help our fellow man, but this proposal was not thought out from the start. I am very disappointed that efforts to move this facility away from people’s homes has not been successful. The service provider has changed their minds about protecting our community.”

Many City Employees Hit $100,000 Level -- Time to Move to Zero Based Budgeting

2012-08-28T11:02:00.000-07:00

The City needs to grapple with the problems outlined in the Long Beach Business Journal on $100,000 employee positions. The article touts the Mayor and management as being the only movers on the issue of pension reform. However, to think that any pension reforms came without the complete support of the City Council (remember we are still a Council-Manager form of government) is dishonest. All city employees need to pay their share of the pension costs -- including management -- a fact I pointed out during budget meetings and was told by the Mayor that my calling for them to pay their share of pension costs was "class warfare."

The rhetoric needs to stop. Threatening a ballot measure to exact additional pension reform and that would be found unenforceable -- which the City Attorney has reminded several times -- may make some feel good but will not bring the results touted. Instead of chest pounding, the City needs real structural changes in the way we budget and spend money.

The only way we are really going to get any budget reform is to utilize a "zero based" budgeting process -- requiring every department to start from zero each budget year and build the budget by need and not simply add on to the previous budget. In theory, the organization’s entire budget needs to be justified and approved, rather than just the incremental change from the prior year. We need to stop making last year’s budget the starting point for the next budget. Zero based budgeting also allows the city to layout different levels of service so that real choices can be made as to what the city should and can afford to provide. It also helps answer the question: which services should really be funded? Instead of the usual answer: we should fund the ones we funded the year before, it makes elected and managers fund those services that are needed and justifiable.

Zero based budgeting takes considerable work to implement – which is the biggest argument against it. Also managers are reluctant to recommend lower budgets than what they currently oversee. It also uncovers “special funds” tucked away that don’t show up in the current budgets.

The City also has to be completely transparent about how we spend money throughout the year. When I suggested that we do as many other cities and states do – post their monthly or quarterly expenditures – it was met with stiff opposition. It is the money of the taxpayer we are spending and I think they have the right to see our checkbook.

Unless the City of Long Beach is serious about real structural change and on-going transparency, you will read about more and more employees earning $100,000 while City core services are being cut.

Schipske Proposes Specific Use of Funds to Restore Cuts -- Says Oil Revenues May Be Underestimated

2012-08-24T02:15:00.000-07:00

Gerrie Schipske at Ruth Bach Library (Photo credit: Long Beach Public Library)Schipske Proposes Restoring Specific Budget Cuts -- Keeping Our City Safe

Following a packed budget meeting in the 5th Council district where residents came to listen about proposed cuts to the City budget and to discuss their concerns about the impact of the cuts,
Councilwoman Gerrie Schipske has compiled a listing of how a great deal of the these cuts can be restored by using the $17 million dollars that are excess from oil, refuse/street sweeping and state reimbursement for paramedic services.

"The residents have clearly spoken that they do not want police, fire, recreation and libraries cut while $17 million dollars sits as 'surplus'," says Schipske. "No one is proposing starting up new programs. What is being proposed is fixing those services and programs that make this city a safe, quality place in which to live and to work."

Schipske points out that the documents indicating the cuts fail to include what would be needed to keep yet another fire engine from being taken out of service.

"The entire focus in fire is about a pilot project that may not be approved by LA County Emergency Medical Services and repairing fire stations to make gender accommodations. The real issue should have been detailed for the City Council about how we are destroying the ability of our fire service to respond because we are browning out our stations and taking equipment and staff off service. How much would it cost to restore that? No body was given the figures. So I couldn't put it on my list, but will once we get the details."

Schipske says her proposals restore services instead of spending $7 million on a "down payment" on new software systems. "I also think that $1 million (instead of $4) this year is enough to start repairing the fire stations. As we get more funds then we can budget to complete the rest of the facilities."

"I also do not believe that the amount indicated as 'oil surplus' is accurate," says Schipske who has extensively researched the issue of the city's oil revenues. She points out that the FY 2013 budget lists an "oil surplus" of $10.8 million yet last year the city had a surplus of almost $18 million. "This year oil production was up and the price of crude oil fluctuated all year long between $80 and $125 a barrel. There should be a lot more money coming our way."

During her presentation at her budget meeting, Schipske described the cuts being proposed as "disproportionately impacting the east side of Long Beach."

"Recreational programming in every one of the parks in the 5th district is being eliminated. The only swimming pool on this side of town is being closed in the summer. We lost a fire engine from Station 18 last year and response times for emergency medical services is up due to reduced staffing. Our two library branches -- which serve the students of over 20 public and private schools in the 5th -- are being constantly cut back. Sidewalk repair funds are being cut -- and the 5th has the most sidewalks in the city. Park Ranger patrols are being reduced to only one park, and only 3 days a week and the 5th has the most parks. Crime is up here. We need more police. That is why it makes no sense to cut these services and use available funds for other projects. The economy is improving -- our sales tax revenue is up and so is property tax revenue. The price of crude oil remains high. We need to be cautious and I believe restoring these cuts as my residents and I have set out, does just that."

Date: August 21, 2012
To: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
From: Councilwoman Gerrie Schipske, Fifth District
Subject: Recommendations concerning disbursement of “surplus” funds

DISCUSSION: Following up with a community budget meeting in the 5th Council District and the input given by residents on line at: www.5thdistrictbudgetchoices.ideascale.com it is recommended that the “surplus” funds be distributed in the following manner:

Restore the gang and other specialized details in the police department: $3.8 m
Restore support services for the police department: $2.3 m
Fund the police academy and transport vans: $3.1 m
Reduce funding for repair of fire stations to: $1 m
Restore youth sports and after school programs: $1.2 m
Restore swimming pools: $63,000
Restore El Dorado Nature Center, Adaptive Recreation and Senior Center programming: $364,000
Restore a portion of the funding for Library Services: $400,000
Restore sidewalk repair money: $1 m
Fund infrastructure repair of park facilities: $1 m
Fund reserves: $1 m
Invest in software/systems necessary to improve human resources management/billing/collections: $2 m
Total: $18 million (with assumption that oil monies have been underestimated)

These recommendations restore core services that provide public safety and quality of life for our residents.

Budget Questions I Have Asked

2012-08-21T09:45:00.000-07:00

Need a Breakdown of All Positions to Be Impacted by Proposed Cuts

Schipske Launches Innovative On Line Tool to Engage Residents in Decisions

2012-08-16T12:13:00.000-07:00

For immediate release

Contact Tiffany Andrews: 562 570-6932

Schipske Launches Another Innovative On Line Way for Residents To Vote on Budget Cuts –

IdeaScale Allows People to Engage in Discussion About Other Ideas Too

August 15, 2012 – From the moment she posted her Council calendar on line and set up her blog six years ago, Fifth District Councilwoman Gerrie Schipske has brought one innovative way after another to open up Long Beach city government to its residents.

So when she looked how to combine “crowd sourcing” with citizen engagement, she found a perfect source with IdeaScale.com.

“I talked with Josh Folk, VP of Government Relations at IdeaScale and he walked me through how this could work to get residents to go on line and actually rank and discuss the proposed budget cuts,” explains Schipske. “When I found out IdeaScale is used throughout the federal government and by Fortune 500 companies such as Avid, Xerox, SAP, Wired Magazine, Choice Hotels to get feedback from citizens and customers I thought why not here in Long Beach.”

Schipske, who has made cuts to her own council budget and staff, took time to input the proposed cuts and information herself into http://5thdistrictbudgetchoices.ideascale.com/ . “That’s the kind of work I do in the middle of the night.”

“I do hope residents will take time to use this tool,” says Schipske, who also urged the City to utilize the interactive budget challenge made available by Next10. (It can be viewed at www.longbeach.gov/budgetchallenge ).

“If this works, I can see using this on many policy issues facing the City Council as a way to get residents engaged. I also think it can be used to solicit city employee ideas on how to save money and make their departments more efficient.”

#30

The Soul of Long Beach

2012-08-15T19:19:00.000-07:00

Knight Soul of the Community Logo (Photo credit: Knight Foundation)View the attached videos from Knight Gallup about the research they did on 25 cities and what makes residents attached to their communities. When residents like where they live -- the city benefits economically.

Also read the study that was done on Long Beach by this organization by clicking here. Three major drivers make a community thrive: openness, aesthetics and social offerings -- places to gather.

As we consider the devastating budget cuts proposed by the Mayor and City Manager, we need to keep in mind what are we doing to the character of this city and ask ourselves: are we driving away those residents who are attached to the city because we are taking away those drivers that kept them here?

We are hurting the soul of this city

2012-08-14T22:08:00.000-07:00

I was struck by a 2010 Knight Foundation story that surveyed the factors that make a resident love their city -- what makes the soul of a city. The story showed in 25 cities -- including Long Beach -- that residents who love their city help make the economy grow. What residents want are places to gather, clean and green spaces and openness -- acceptance by others.

The cuts being proposed go to the soul of Long Beach. Our residents need and depend upon our libraries and our parks and recreation programs. Our families count on after school opportunities and a place for their children to study and to read. Our kids want to play sports and stay busy. Those with disabilities need adaptive recreation and safe swimming pools so they have the chance to interact with their peers. Our seniors want to attend programs that enable them to keep active and out of nursing homes.

We should not be pitting these quality of life services against police and fire for funding. It should not be an either or especially when the city has a surplus.

Long Beach Residents Pay Pennies Each Month for Library Services

2012-08-11T01:59:00.000-07:00

The following is a chart I asked our Budget staff to prepare to break down how much each household in Long Beach pays monthly in property taxes for City Services. You will be very surprised about how little is spent on many services.

Avg Monthly Prop Taxes Per House

Meeting On Proposed Budget Cuts Set for August 20th

2012-08-11T01:22:00.000-07:00

Councilwoman Gerrie Schipske invites all residents of Long Beach to attend a community meeting to discuss the proposed budget cuts for Fiscal Year 2013.

The meeting will take place at the Long Beach Water Treatment Plant located at Redondo Avenue and Spring Street and will start at 6 pm.

The City Manager, Department Directors and the Fire and Police chiefs will be on hand to answer questions. Representatives from the employee associations have also been invited to participate in the discuss.

Open Up Long Beach

Get Ready for the Push for a Private Public Partnership In Long Beach to Rebuild a Civic Center -- Experts Say These Arrangements May Be New Subprime Problem that Caused Mortgage Meltdown

Related articles

Why Agenda Item on Using Outside Experts to Analyze City Payroll Systems

Related articles

Time for Long Beach to Ban Campaign Contributions from Contractors and Disclose Private Texts with Lobbyists During Council

Related articles

Schipske's Open Up Long Beach Efforts Highlighted in Statewide Report

International Sunshine Week -- Making Government Transparent

Related articles

Politician Sets up Bogus Committee for State Treasurer to Have Slush Fund

Related articles

Selling Public Assets Need Public Discussion

Closed Session Will Consider Long Beach Civic Center Revamp - Gazettes.com: Government

US Dept of Energy Showcases SERRF Plant in Long Beach

Related articles

Council members Lowenthal and Neal are asking the Council to support new parcel tax: What do you think?

Related articles

Long Beach Residents Need to Know What Potential Liability Is on Telephone Tax Case

Come where few have gone in Long Beach

Inside look at LB Health and Human Services Department

LAO Estimates LB Courthouse Will Cost $160 Million More than It Could Have If Private-Public Partnership Not Used

Related articles

Police Dept Releases Quarterly Crime Stats

Get Inside -- Join Me for an Inside Look At the City's Dept of Health and Human Services

Disclosing what really happened in closed session on Schroeder Army Hall

Many City Employees Hit $100,000 Level -- Time to Move to Zero Based Budgeting

Schipske Proposes Specific Use of Funds to Restore Cuts -- Says Oil Revenues May Be Underestimated

Budget Questions I Have Asked

Schipske Launches Innovative On Line Tool to Engage Residents in Decisions

Related articles

The Soul of Long Beach

Related articles

We are hurting the soul of this city

Long Beach Residents Pay Pennies Each Month for Library Services

Meeting On Proposed Budget Cuts Set for August 20th

Related articles