Struggling with Equal Benefits Ordinance Process

When Councilmember Robert Garcia approached me last Sunday afternoon to co-sponsor an ordinance that would be placed on the Council Agenda to mandate Equal Benefits for any business doing business with the City of Long Beach, I asked that we sit down and discuss exactly what was being proposed and also discuss the timing of doing something like this in the current economy. Councilmember Garcia told me we would talk but that he would go ahead with it without my co-sponsorship.

And he did the next day by placing it on the agenda with another co-sponsor for July 14, not the 21st.

So I have had to do extensive research on the concept and what other cities have enacted. As far as I can see, every city that has adopted this ordinance did so after several public hearings and with input from the business and gay and lesbian communities before the ordinance was crafted.

In fairness to everyone, we need to do the same: refer it to a council committee and the Human Relations Commission for public hearings and in-put. That way we can work out the details in public -- such as the dollar threshold for the requirement to kick in. Several cities set it at $50,000 and above -- some set it lower. Also in Minnesota, only employers with 51 employers or more (considered to be large employers) would be required to comply. They also exempt religious organizations. We also need to hear from the City Attorney about how we word the ordinance so not to conflict with our legal responsibility to select the lowest bidder -- which is now causing New York City problems.

The concept is right. The City should not do business with businesses that discriminate against their employees with domestic partners. And since it costs the same for an employer to provide health care benefits to the spouse of an employee as it would for the domestic partner of an employee it is only fair.

That being said, I believe the City Council has an obligation not only to propose law but to get as many people who will be impacted by that law involved. The Council has done this on fire sprinklers, lobbyist registration, second story moratorium, large trucks and many other proposed code changes. It just makes for better law. It just makes sense.

So I will be asking that we refer the matter to the Council Committee on Economic Development and the citizen Human Relations Commission so that the Council can support an ordinance that will really be effective.

Residents Angry About Proposed Water Rate Increase...and Lack of Enforcement for Overwatering

The letter just started to hit my district. You know. The one that says because we have a shortage of water, the Water Commission is going to raise water rates.

Oh that one. Try explaining to anyone why if Long Beach has conserved more water than any other jurisdiction, it is now being rewarded by higher water rates.

Also, as I walk the district (and respond to many emails), people are mad as hornets over the Water Department's advertising campaign encouraging people to turn in those who waste water. In some instances this has turned into an instant neighbor feud. In others, residents complain to me that when they report offenders, the overwatering continues. (That's because there are no teeth in the water shortage/conservation effort. No fine. Just stern warnings.)

I am voting against any increase in Water rates and for real penalties for overwatering.

Walking and Talking

I am out in the 5th District again walking and talking to neighbors. The feedback is positive. Residents like my outreach and communications efforts. They also like this blog and the fact that I "fight for them" when I ask questions and probe further when proposals are brought to council.

Don't get me wrong. Residents still want their sidewalks fixed and their trees trimmed and speeding stopped on their residential streets. They also expect prompt responses from police and fire. They support our local libraries and the programs in our parks.

They do not want additional taxes or for the city to spend money on non-core services.

If I hear anything different, I'll let you all know.

P.S. It is hot out here on many of the streets where residents had the city trees removed. I've asked a couple of them if they a new tree and usually the answer is "no" because they don't want one more thing to take care of.

All Extra Money Should Go Into General Fund

Last night Council considered a very complex financial transaction that essentially "tenders" 30% of the pre-pay natural gas contracts we agreed to with Merrill Lynch.

Doing so will return about 25 million to the Gas and Oil Department. More importantly it will not increase the cost to the consumer.

In the memo to the Council was a proposal to use some of these new funds to pay for the relocation of the Public Service Yard which is a necessary component of the proposed wetlands and land swap. The council approved my motion that removed that provision so that any additional funds from the tendering of 30% of the bonds will go to the General Fund and not to pay to move the Public Service Yard -- which we can wait to do until we are financially solvent.

Alcohol in the Parks -- Redux

After a meeting with park protection activists and Phil Hester, Director of Parks, Recreation and Marine Department I think we may have worked out a compromise that protects the parks but allows alcohol in specific places (actually reduces the number of places originally proposed) and under very specific circumstances (i.e. weddings, corporate picnics, Octoberfest, etc)

These park protection activists worked years ago to keep alcohol and a sports park out of El Dorado Park and are concerned that the latest proposal would open all the parks to alcohol and would create serious problems -- especially since we have cut the number of Park Rangers.

Mr. Hester is taking the changes back to the Parks, Recreation and Marine Department and then to the City Council.

It was a good meeting. Let's hope we get a good resolution to this issue.

Contact City Manager About Fire Station Cuts

Okay. So I have heard it now not less than 5 times that coming soon to your local city council meeting are proposals to "brown out" several fire stations -- two of which are in my council district.

If I were a worrying sort, I'd say the timing is suspicious right before the start of campaign season. But I am giving the powers that be the benefit that they are "putting everything on the table" and not targeting a specific district.

So help me tell the City Manager and the Mayor to take it off the table.

The 5th Council District has three fire stations: 5, 18 and 19. Click here to see them:
http://www.longbeach.gov/fire/station_locations.asp

I understand the plan is to shut down one station in the morning and one in the evening.

Let me tell you why that is wrong and so very dangerous. The majority of calls for service in my district are for paramedics. If you even add 3 minutes to a response time because the station is closed and another has to respond, you are wasting precious minutes especially for those who are in cardiac arrest.

For three years I have called for establishing a paramedic subscription program that would bring in funds at the same time help our residents by waiving their co-pay. Many, many cities are doing this.

You can contact the city manager at: patrick.west@longbeach.gov and the Mayor at Bob.Foster@longbeach.gov. Tell them it is a bad idea to cut fire services.

Nyet on Using Gas Contract Money For Public Service Yard

In the spirit of Obama being in Russia, I thought I would say "no" in a different language.

I know that some are a twitter (and are twittering) that the cost of moving the City's Public Service Yard can be paid for out of an arrangement involving our natural gas contracts.

So again. "Nyet." "No."

For you see, the cost of moving the Public Service Yard is about $500,000 and stands in the way of closing the land swap deal in which the city gives the public service yard to the owner of the "wetlands properties" -- thus necessitating the City to move out of the Public Service Yard at a cost of $500,000.

Yes. I am most interested in saving the wetlands. But I am more interested in saving the City of Long Beach from financial ruin or cutting fire and police or other necessary services because we don't have the money.

Use the $500,000 to keep our fire stations open. Use the $500,000 to make certain we have enough police on the streets. Use the $500,000 to restore the Library's budget that has been so cut this year and next.

You have to ask yourself why in this economy and with all of the problems the city and state faces, we are focusing on spending money for anything that isn't our core service.