CJ Dablo/Signal Tribune Board member John Stammreich of the NW San Pedro Neighborhood Council discusses his ideas on State Assembly district boundaries before the public hearing of the California Citizens Redistricting Commission on April 27 at the Long Beach Council Chambers.

By CJ Dablo
Staff Writer

Fourteen Californians have been charged with the task of drawing a final political map of the golden state by August, and right now they’re asking their fellow state residents to tell them how to best do their job.
Using figures from the latest 2010 Census and drawing public input into the process, the California Citizens Redistricting Commission came to the Long Beach Council Chambers on Wednesday to hear public comments on how to determine new political districts. The Commission will determine the new boundaries of the state’s Assembly, Senate and Board of Equalization districts. In addition, they will draw new boundaries for the state’s 53 Congressional districts.
Both local officials and the Commission stressed that public input is critical to the Commission’s goal to draw the political maps for a state that boasts a population estimated by the US Census Bureau to total more than 37 million.
Commissioner Gil Ontai, one of the 14 members of the Commission, acknowledged that understanding the local communities is key to putting the districts together.
“Number one, we’re hoping to get the public to come forward and say, ‘This is what our community looks like,’” said Ontai who explained that the Commission needs to identify “communities of interest.”
“And that’s the hardest part for us to define, primarily because we can’t do that,” said Ontai of the Commission. “We don’t know the neighborhoods. We don’t know the communities. We don’t know where groups of people sharing socio-economic similarities live and how they combine themselves. So the only way we know that is by listening to the public.”
Ontai was selected to serve on the Commission last December. He is based in San Diego.
Taking part in a round of public hearings that will be held in locations throughout Southern California, local residents on April 27 flocked to Long Beach’s City Hall to offer their input on redistricting. More than 200 people packed the Long Beach Council Chambers and even sat in the aisles when they couldn’t easily find a seat. Residents, who mostly hailed from South Bay and Long Beach areas, advocated for their neighborhoods and local communities at Wednesday night’s meeting.
More than half of the crowd signed up to speak during the hearing that lasted more than four hours. In addition to the local residents who wanted to engage in the civic discourse, there was no shortage of elected local officials, former elected officials, and former candidates for elected office who took their turns at their podium for their allotted two minutes.
Long Beach’s public hearing was part of a first round of opportunities for constituents to participate directly in the process of drawing the political district maps. The process is new for everyone– including the Commission. Rather than continuing to allow elected representatives to draw the district maps, Californians voted in 2008 to empower the independent commission to redraw specific state office district boundaries. At last November’s election, voters added the task of drawing Congressional district maps to the Commission’s “to do” list.
Although the speakers represented a variety of “communities of interest,” several spoke in favor of drawing a map where the political districts would not blend Orange and Los Angeles county constituencies.
“One thing that hasn’t been mentioned here is that East Long Beach is actually not part of Orange County,” said East Long Beach resident Andrew Kincaid, drawing a few laughs from the audience. Kincaid says he lives in the 46th Congressional District.
“Right now the district kind of sweeps along the coast and reaches all the way over to Palos Verdes. It’s sort of an abomination,” Kincaid said.
Kincaid expanded on a concern that Long Beach Councilmembers Robert Garcia and Gary DeLong had expressed in a press statement earlier this week.
“As elected officials from two different political parties,” they wrote, “we may not always agree on every issue, but we do agree on this: keep Long Beach together. We are asking you to support that Long Beach representation remains in Los Angeles County and that pieces of Long Beach neighborhoods are not thrown into electoral districts in Orange County.”
Garcia is a Democrat, and DeLong is a Republican.
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a Republican, represents the 46th Congressional District that covers an area that spans two counties and includes a portion of the Long Beach coastline. His district stretches west as far as Palos Verdes Estates. If the Commission chooses to separate districts along county lines, Rohrabacher’s constituency would be immediately affected. When asked to comment on Rohrabacher’s Long Beach constituency, a spokesperson from the representative’s Washington, DC office offered a brief statement over email.
“Mr. Rohrabacher has honorably served his constituents in Long Beach and hopes he has the opportunity to continue to do so,” said Tara Olivia Setmayer, communications director for Rohrabacher. “It does the residents of Long Beach a disservice if they are drawn into a district that only has one representative in Congress instead of two.”
However, during Wednesday night’s meeting, many residents who live in other districts said they are happy with their district maps and representation. Some had advocated to keep the 37th Congressional District intact. Some also stressed that Long Beach does not need to have a Congressional district with only one representative.
Still others want to correct boundaries. A few residents addressed how they have been affected by past redistricting efforts for the state Assembly and Senate areas.
“I think what you find is that redistricting [has] pretty much been arbitrary in this city, at least for the Assembly District and the Senate District,” said Tonia Reyes Uranga, a former Long Beach councilmember in a short interview Wednesday night. Reyes Uranga says that she is represented by State Sen. Rod Wright who is based in Inglewood. Reyes Uranga said she has no plans to run for the state or Congressional offices that would be affected by the redistricting process. She further pointed out problems with the Assembly representation. She did not move her residence, but in the duration of ten years she was moved between the 54th and 55th State Assembly districts, according to Reyes Uranga.
“You know, they draw these lines around our homes without any kind of acknowledgement as to what the communities of interests are,” she said.
As constituents spoke about their unique communities, staffers who were ready to assist the Commission quickly accessed maps that were then projected onto a screen. Many times, members of the Commission asked speakers to name other neighboring communities that should be incorporated into their district. At times, the staff took a moment to sketch out a model of a district map based on the speakers’ proposals.
“I like to remind people that they have the opportunity to have an impact on who’s going to represent them,” said Long Beach Councilmember Rae Gabelich in a telephone interview Wednesday afternoon. “How they’re drawn makes no difference to me,” she said, indicating that she has no plans to run for the state or Congressional offices that would be affected by redistricting. Earlier this month, she had encouraged her constituents to participate in this process.
Members of the public are invited to contact the Commission to voice their opinions on redistricting. A list of upcoming meetings will be posted at wedrawthelines.ca.gov. Those interested may also call the Commission at (866) 356-5217.
The Commission plans to submit a first draft of the map based on the input from the hearings by June 10, according to their information packet. Future hearings where the public will offer their input are scheduled this summer after the first, second and final drafts are submitted. The deadline for the Commission to approve a final draft of the district maps is Aug. 15.

Signal Hill Councilmembers Larry Forester and Tina Hansen

By CJ Dablo
Staff Writer

As they congratulated their peers, Tina Hansen and Larry Forester, for their successful bid for re-election to Signal Hill City Council, Councilmembers Mike Noll and Ellen Ward raised their glasses of water during Wednesday’s Council meeting.
Their small act was a subtle acknowledgement of the vigorous campaign the incumbent councilmembers organized against challenger Matt Simmons. Simmons had proposed several ideas to his constituency, including a solution to wind down Signal Hill’s water department and purchase drinking water through the City of Long Beach. Simmons had earlier criticized the quality of Signal Hill’s water and blasted that City’s budget priorities under the leadership of the incumbent city council.
“I think what we realized from this election is that you’ll always have people disagree with you, but the majority of people support. . .what you stand for and what you do and what you want to do,” Hansen said at the meeting.
Hansen also condemned how Simmons ran his campaign.
“Negative campaigns lead to negative results,” Hansen said, acknowledging that several members of the city staff faced personal criticism and accusations from Simmons’s campaign. Hansen mentioned an email from Simmons’s campaign which compared Ken Farfsing, Signal Hill’s city manager, to the disgraced Robert Rizzo, city manager from the City of Bell. Rizzo faces criminal charges of public corruption.
“The arrogance and audacity of that [email comparing Farfsing to Rizzo] is just beyond anything that I could even begin to imagine,” Hansen said. “And that was just the tip of the iceberg for the rest of the campaign.”
Simmons was not present at this week’s City Council meeting, however he did provide a brief statement through email Thursday morning in response to Hansen’s statements.
“In the email, I questioned whether it was appropriate to compensate our City Manager a quarter million dollars when we are a city of 11,500 and Long Beach pays their city manager the same, and they have a population of 500,000,” Simmons said in his email.
“The Beachcomber reported $473,000 of compensation to our city attorney’s firm and, in response, Councilman Forester threatened to sue the newspaper,” Simmons stated in his email. “We need a taxpayer watchdog. I want to thank all of the voters who turned out on March 1, and we need continued community involvement to protect our resources.”
Mayor Ed Wilson took issue with The Beachcomber’s article and indicated Wednesday that he had called The Beachcomber to respond to the article but did not receive a returned call from the newspaper.
“It’s a valid point to look at what we spend in Signal Hill,” Wilson said, however he advised that observers make suitable comparisons between cities. “When you look at the costs or any other expenses, and you want to compare them to another organization, I think it’s important that you compare the apples to apples and oranges to oranges,” Wilson said. “So if we’re going to compare city attorney fees. . .the first thing you have to do is figure out why we’re spending that money.”
Wilson acknowledged that the attorney costs may be high in some years, depending on the scope of the projects. He also noted that the City relies not only on one specific individual, David Aleshire, for its city attorney expertise, it relies on the resources of his firm and Signal Hill pays by the hour.
“[When] you want to compare to a full-time city attorney in another city, then I think it’s important that you compare against the full cost of that city attorney and all the expertise,” Wilson said. “And Long Beach. . . you have to include the whole staff, which is a whole floor in Long Beach.”
According to Aleshire, there are 80 staffers who serve Long Beach’s city attorney needs.
Forester reflected on the campaign at Wednesday’s meeting.
“It was a good education, I think, for many of our citizens. I think they have learned some things they didn’t have details on. They learned that a snippet out of context is meaningless,” Forester said, also alluding to contentious debates and attacks to his credibility.
Both Hansen and Forester praised Farfsing and several city employees who spent time with Simmons to answer his questions, even after critical remarks from Simmons’s campaign surfaced.
“I tell you, personally, I feel like I’ve been run over by a Mack Truck,” Forester added. “I’m glad we were able to at least convey to our citizens what we’re trying to do and what we have done for our city.”

In other City Council news:
The Council approved a request to amend a zoning ordinance that would allow animal daycare in several commercial and industrial districts in Signal Hill. Formerly, the ordinance allowed pet businesses to offer animal grooming and other animal-related services in these districts, but it did not specifically allow daycare. Overnight animal boarding was not officially proposed Wednesday in the affected areas, however, the Council asked to study the possibility of allowing overnight kennels in designated areas in the future.
Businesses would be regulated to ensure cleanup of animal waste and would be required to comply with standards for owners to connect their wash-down facilities directly to a sanitary sewer system, according to Scott Charney, Community Development director.
No one from the public spoke to oppose the zoning ordinance amendment request. One dog owner spoke in favor of the change.
“Believe me, this kind of stuff isn’t cheap,” said greyhound owner and Signal Tribune publisher Neena Strichart at Wednesday’s night Council meeting. “To be able to keep my dollars, my doggie dollars, in Signal Hill would be a wonderful thing.”
The zoning ordinance amendment request was spearheaded by the owners of Bark! Bark! Daycare & Grooming, Vivan Dominguez and Danielle Portillo.
The owners of Bark! Bark! have begun to set up shop at a new location at 2655 St. Louis Ave. in Signal Hill. According to Portillo, their facility will accommodate as many as 50 to 60 dogs. They have one other downtown location on Atlantic Avenue in the city of Long Beach. They are planning a grand opening of their new Signal Hill location on April 2.
Wilson also issued a proclamation to Ron Petke, a board member of the Greater Long Beach Chapter of the American Red Cross. The City recognized Red Cross Awareness Month.
Wilson issued another proclamation to recognize the 101st birthday of Camp Fire USA. To commemorate the celebration, members of the organization’s local club, San Wa Di O Ka, presented a small birthday cake to the attendees at Council Chambers.
The City Council set a date to interview the final candidates under consideration for the job of Signal Hill police chief. A background check and pre-interview sessions will be completed before the City Council interviews the finalists on March 29, 2011.

During Wednesday night’s Signal Hill Council candidate forum, challenger Matt Simmons, incumbent Tina Hansen and incumbent Larry Forester covered a lot of ground on various issues, including the safety of the city’s drinking water, the future of redevelopment funds, the value of local real estate, adult-entertainment venues, the EDCO waste-transfer facility, homeowners’ views, voter apathy and the two abandoned homes on Hill Street.

By Cory Bilicko
Managing Editor

In their last opportunity to present their platforms and defend their actions in a public assembly before the looming March 1 election, the three candidates for Signal Hill City Council again gathered Wednesday night for a candidate forum, this time hosted by the Willow Ridge Community Association in its community room.
During the forum, which was sponsored by Concerned Citizens of Signal Hill (CCSH) and the Signal Tribune, and moderated by CCSH member Gary Dudley, challenger Matt Simmons and incumbents Larry Forester and Tina Hansen treaded in territory that was familiar to those who had attended the Feb. 7 forum in the City’s council chambers: the City’s budget, how redevelopment funds are being utilized, and plans to construct a new library and an EDCO waste-transfer station. However, since that last forum, a new topic of contention had arisen, mainly as the result of posts that had appeared on Simmons’s Wordpress blog entitled “Your Signal Hill Voice” and as an issue he’d raised during the Feb. 15 City Council meeting— whether Signal Hill’s drinking water contains safe levels of arsenic.
Last week the environmental watchdog group The League of Conservation Voters distributed a mailer which criticized Forester as a protector of “big polluters that have made our water unsafe.” It asserts that Forester, as leader of the Coalition for Practical Regulations, has worked with polluters to try and overturn water-quality clean-up laws in the courts. At Wednesday’s forum, Simmons claimed he had had no prior knowledge of that mailer and had nothing to do with its distribution, but Hansen then pointed out that Simmons had nevertheless been quick to post it on his blog.
Forester dismissed the mailer as “misinformation” and said he is a friend to families in Signal Hill. “I would never do anything to hurt those families,” he said. Regarding Simmons’s claim that the city’s drinking water contains unsafe levels of arsenic, which he says is based on a recent New York Times article, Hansen pointed out that that study tested arsenic levels before treatment, not after. “They do not differentiate between pre-treated water and post-treated water,” Hansen said. “We have never been shut down by the California Health Department. We have never been on a ‘boiled water’ order, as other cities have been. We have never been told we can’t drink our water. So, when you look at the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) safeguards, yes, our water is absolutely safe. And do you really think that a mom of 6-year-old twins would sit back and allow the City to give water to the residents that does not meet the EPA standard? No, I would not.”
Simmons then claimed that Signal Hill does not have a treatment facility to remove arsenic from the water, as Long Beach does. “I believe we could get better-quality water from Long Beach that is better treated,” Simmons said. Forester rebutted by saying, “I think Mr. Simmons needs to check his facts. We had one of the first treatment facilities for arsenic in our Gundry reservoir facility. It has been written up by EPA; EPA came out and visited. WRD (Water Replenishment District) gave us a no-interest loan to build it. We are within limits. You have to know your facts.”

Tina Hansen

When Dudley asked the candidates if they think redevelopment funds should be used by the City to fund a new library, Forester and Hansen were in agreement that they should, whereas Simmons disagreed, stating that the City should instead focus on ventures that generate revenue. “By doing the library, we will max out our bond potential for other redevelopment agency [projects],” Simmons said. “The redevelopment agency has a $13-million budget, and so, whatever projects we take on, it has to be able to be paid back. So, if we do the library, we can’t do something else. We need, especially considering our structural budget deficit, considering we’re spending money at a non-sustainable rate, we need to invest in revenue-generators.” He suggested building restaurants in the area just south of the Fresh & Easy market, which, he said, is a blighted area, and hotels near the hospitals on Atlantic Avenue. “Instead, we’re using redevelopment money and opportunity to create a liability (the library) which is going to increase our budget deficit.”
Forester countered by saying, “We should absolutely use it for the library.” He said that all the plans for the facility have been completed and all the mitigation statements are in place. Forester said that if redevelopment funds are indeed dropped by mid-year, the City is already positioned to use that money for the library. “Unless you have a project ready, it can’t go to redevelopment,” he said. “We’re project-ready with the library.”

Larry Forester

Hansen used an “apples to oranges” analogy to clarify Simmons’s statement about the City’s so-called structural budget deficit. “It’s general-fund money, which is mostly from our sales tax, versus redevelopment money, which comes from our property tax,” she said. Hansen also explained that, since the governor wants the redevelopment agencies shut down, the City must act quickly on projects that are already in place. “If the redevelopment agency is shut down on July 1 of 2011, and we have not bonded out our remaining future property-tax increase, we will lose that money forever,” she said. “And the only way we can bond out, redevelopment law says, you must have a definable project, and it must be completed in three years. We don’t have a definable set of restaurants by Fresh & Easy. We don’t have a definable hotel on Atlantic and Spring. We can’t bond out and then just hold the money and find something. We have to have a definable project; we use it or lose it.”

Matt Simmons

When the moderator asked the candidates if they believe Signal Hill’s real-estate values have depreciated, compared to other cities, Forester said they have not. “We have been very wise about what we’ve built and where we’ve built,” Forester said. Hansen agreed with him, saying, “If you look at the assessor’s information from last year, Signal Hill’s property values actually plateaued, and Long Beach property values went down another five percent.” Simmons’s response opened a new proverbial can of worms. “I think this question goes back to our identity,” he said. “Does it make sense to build strip clubs a thousand feet from right here?”
Forester addressed that question by saying he wishes people would understand the two “adult-entertainment” businesses in the city. “Our council had absolutely no choice, by a United States Supreme Court ruling that every city in the United States has to have an adult-entertainment area and it cannot be overtly sexual,” he said, noting that the City has been conscientious about where those venues are located and that the new police station will be positioned across the street from one of them. “By law, I could not stop [the venues from opening.]”
Another issue addressed during the forum included what should be done about the two abandoned homes on Hill Street, which the councilmembers noted are actually located in the city of Long Beach. “That’s where building a strong relationship with Long Beach helps out,” Simmons said. Forester noted that he himself is friends with Long Beach Councilmember Patrick O’Donnell, whose district contains the homes, and that he is indeed working with O’Donnell on the matter.

Attendees at Wednesday’s Signal Hill Council candidate forum listened to Simmons, Hansen and Forester debate the issue of protecting residents’ views versus preserving the city’s trees, among a plethora of other topics.

During another part of the forum in which Simmons bemoaned what he called “voter apathy” in the city, Hansen brought up the fact that Simmons did not vote in the 2009 election. Simmons explained that he did not vote at that time because he and his wife had just moved to Signal Hill and he did not want to cancel out the vote of someone better informed since he did not yet know the issues.
For more information about the March 1 election, call (562) 989-7305 or visit cityofsignalhill.org.

Photos courtesy Signal Tribune

Matt Simmons, Larry Forester and Tina Hansen debated issues surrounding Signal Hill's future at a candidate forum sponsored by the League of Women Voters Monday in the Signal Hill Council Chambers.

By CJ Dablo
Staff Writer

Three candidates vying for the two available seats on the Signal Hill City Council found few places for common ground when they debated the future of the city Monday night. The two current council members defended their records and disputed facts presented by a contender during a candidate forum.
More than 50 people packed into the Signal Hill Council Chambers to listen to real estate businessman Matt Simmons challenge City Councilmember Tina Hansen and Vice Mayor Larry Forester for a council seat.
Hansen and Forester have each served on the Council more than a decade. Hansen has been on the Council since 1994. She works as a deputy district attorney for the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office. Forester, a retired technical sales engineer, was appointed to City Council in 1998.
Monday’s debate, an event sponsored by the League of Women Voters, centered on economic priorities. While the incumbent candidates emphasized a record of successes during their terms on the Council, Simmons stressed the need for immediate change.
“I think change is healthy,” Simmons said. “It reminds everybody that the city council works on behalf of the residents.” But Simmons also criticized the current administration and its financial decisions. “We are spending money at a non-sustainable rate,” he said, adding that the city formerly had $8 million in operating reserves but now has $4 million.
Both Hansen and Forester acknowledged that although the City has already made efforts to cut spending, they are still reviewing the budget for more places where Signal Hill could save money. They prioritized the need to analyze personnel pension funds.
“We need to continue to review everything in the budget against income,” Forester said, adding that the City has already reduced spending by $1 million.
Forester stressed that the City should apply a crucial test when considering an item on the budget– “Is it nice or absolutely necessary?” “And, believe me, everything is on the table to be reviewed,” Forester said.
Hansen did not agree with Simmons’s assertion that the City Council needs a new perspective. “This is not time for change,” Hansen said, adding that the city leaders have overseen several positive changes over the years. She highlighted the number of new businesses that have moved into Signal Hill.
“You need council members like myself who understand the complete picture of the issues facing our cities, who are not just looking at this year, but are looking at five years down the road to make sure that we plan effectively,” she said.
Simmons challenged the financial decisions of the current city leaders, targeting personnel budgets.
“There’s a property planner getting paid $160,000 a year,” Simmons said, explaining that the city paid full-time salaries for this employee and another city worker who served as a property inspector. “After they retired, we hired a part-time contractor who is able to do this job in about three hours.”
Hansen took issue with Simmons’s statement, explaining that he was referring to two employees who have since retired after they had served the city as a building inspector and a building official. Hansen said that these employees had other job functions that involved code enforcement, inspections and handling issues with the abandoned oil wells.
“And it’s absolutely crazy to think that our building inspector and our building official each worked 20 hours a week or three hours a week and then sat at their desk the rest of the time and collected their full pay,” Hansen said. “That is absolutely not true.”
The candidates addressed the future of the city’s Redevelopment Agency (RDA) projects. Earlier this year, Governor Jerry Brown announced his intention to end RDAs as part of an aggressive plan for budget cuts.
The candidates acknowledged the RDA’s contribution to Signal Hill’s success. Since 1974, redevelopment initiatives transformed the city’s blighted areas into projects that benefited the community. Projects included the development of affordable-housing units and the clean-up of abandoned oil wells in the city.
But while the RDA’s achievements were praised, Simmons expressed specific concerns about one new potential RDA project. At the City Council and RDA meetings earlier this month, council members voted to recognize construction of a new library as a possible future redevelopment project. If plans for construction move forward, the City would need to seek approval for an $11.3-million bond to pay for the project.
Simmons criticized prospective plans to build a new library since this project could not generate revenue for the city.
“I love libraries, but that’s a liability,” said Simmons. “But if we invest in revenue generators, like whether it’s restaurants or things like that, that will help us afford to purchase libraries. So, I think we’re doing things a little bit backwards. Instead of issuing a new bond for $11.3 million for a new library, we should be looking at revenue generators to help out our overall budget.”
Both Hansen and Forester argued in favor of future plans to construct a new library, indicating that if the RDA does indeed build one, the city would keep local property tax dollars for a local project. Hansen further explained that projects out of the RDA funds would not affect general funds.
“I think we need to keep our property taxes in Signal Hill and use the economic engine we built to give a gift to the city in the way of a library,” Hansen said.
Later in the debate, Simmons noted that the intersection at Cherry and Pacific Coast Highway has a severe traffic-congestion problem. Both Hansen and Forester explained that a project to widen the street is already in progress. The City of Long Beach is in the process of acquiring the property needed to complete the project. Forester said that he was told that the project may take place within the next six months.
The candidates also debated the EDCO transfer station, water rights and term limits. Simmons opposed nearly all of the positions taken by Hansen and Forester. Candidates could only agree that the police force services should not be contracted out to the LA County Sheriff’s Department.
Hansen and Forester stood united on all topics presented in the forum. Following the debate, Forester was asked whether he worried if he would have to distinguish himself from Hansen.
“Tina and I are running as a pair,” Forester said. “Tina and I have worked well together. We haven’t always agreed. Legal issues I leave to Tina. Engineering issues I take. And that’s the beauty of our Council and the diversity of the various members. It takes three votes to get anything done. If Mr. Simmons gets on Council, it’s Mr. Simmons. He has no other votes that are going to join him. A council member of one is worthless.”
After the debate, Hansen continued to criticize Simmons’s lack of experience.
“I think what we took away from this is that he doesn’t know the history of this city. He hasn’t been involved in this city,” Hansen said, explaining that Simmons did not understand the issues confronting the current administration. “We need leaders that understand the history, that understand the issues, that are looking at the big picture and that can see us through this.”
Hansen said she hopes that voters will conclude after this debate that she has both the knowledge and experience needed for the job. Forester also stressed his record.
“I’ve served for 12 years,” he said, during the forum. “And I still firmly believe we are the little city that could and did.”
Following the debate, Forester voiced concerns about his opponent’s arguments.
“Mr. Simmons has some facts,” Forester said, “but they’re all out of context. They’re not used properly. And he really needs to spend some time educating before he decides to try to run for Council.”
Simmons continued to dispute the need for experience after the debate.
“My feeling is the Council has done a great job during good times. My concern is that they have not adapted to the economic realities,” he said, stressing that the city needs someone new with a new perspective.
“During not-so-good times, we need somebody who could adapt and live within our means today,” Simmons explained. “That is not happening today.”
With only a few weeks left before the March 1 election, and no future scheduled debates, the candidates are also facing a traditionally low voter turnout. About 16.6 percent to 17.3 percent of the registered voters in Signal Hill turned out to cast their votes in the last two Council elections, according to City voter reports, which included both absentee and election-day ballots.

Signal Hill City Councilmembers Michael Noll (left) and Tina Hansen (right) hold up a sign to promote redevelopment at the council chambers on Feb. 2. Earlier this year, Governor Jerry Brown announced his intention to end redevelopment agencies. City councilmembers criticized the governor's plan at Tuesday's City Council and redevelopment agency meetings.

By CJ Dablo
Staff Writer

Signal Hill City Councilmembers voted Tuesday to adopt a resolution stating opposition to Governor Jerry Brown’s intention to end redevelopment agencies (RDA) in the state. In his “State of the State” address on Monday, Jan. 31, the governor had underscored his desire to end redevelopment agencies as part of his overall budget plan.
Cities have argued that the “redevelopment funds leverage other funds and create jobs,” Brown acknowledged.
“But I also understand that redevelopment funds come directly from local property taxes that would otherwise pay for schools and core city and county services, such as police and fire protection and care for the most vulnerable people in our society,” Brown said. “So it is a matter of hard choices, and I come down on the side of those who believe that core functions of government must be funded first. But be clear, my plan protects current projects and supports all bonded indebtedness of the redevelopment agencies.”
Signal Hill City Councilmember Michael Noll joined the voices of the other members of the council who criticized the governor’s plan.
Noll said that at a recent meeting of the League of California Cities he and other city representatives from around the state attempted to send a message to legislators that these redevelopment funds were used for the public good.
“We worked very hard to. . .use this money to develop the city, clean up blight and increase revenue,” said Noll. “And for every dollar that we get, the state gets $7. And we create jobs with this also. So it’s the worst thing that we could see. And we tried to explain this to them.”
Signal Hill City Manager Ken Farfsing’s report on Tuesday highlighted the RDA’s achievements over nearly 37 years since its inception in 1974. The agency has developed five affordable housing projects since 1999, according to the report.
And since Signal Hill has a significant tie to the oil industry, the City has been charged with a special environmental problem– the clean-up of the area’s numerous oil wells. Farfsing noted that funds will not be available for testing leaking oil wells, the clean-up of contaminated soil, or overseeing abandoned wells if redevelopment ends. The city manager noted that there are 2,800 active and inactive oil wells.
In addition to the resolution opposing the governor’s plan, the Council adopted another resolution to recognize that the library is of benefit to the redevelopment agency. No library bond was proposed at the meeting Tuesday. The community several years ago recognized the need for a library, and the city officers acknowledged the library’s relationship to the redevelopment project area.
“Our intent tonight is basically to build a record and let the administration know, to let Senator [Alan] Lowenthal know, and Assemblymember [Bonnie] Lowenthal know that ending our redevelopment project in Signal Hill would probably be the end of the library and other things,” Farfsing explained.
The library will be added to the list of what’s at stake for the local area if the governor’s plan moves forward. This was a point that was made to Senator Lowenthal in a meeting on Wednesday.
Senator Lowenthal scheduled time with Farfsing and Vice Mayor Larry Forester to discuss the problems of shutting down the city’s redevelopment agency. According to Farfsing, Lowenthal seemed sympathetic to the city’s problems if the redevelopment agency shuts down by July.
Lowenthal acknowledged Signal Hill’s success with their redevelopment projects, said Farfsing. However, according to Farfsing, there will be many factors that will determine the future of redevelopment agencies.
In a special election this summer, California voters will decide whether they will approve legislation to extend taxes. The state senate, assembly and the governor must agree to legislation by early March in order to print it on the ballot for a June election.
Until the legislation is drafted and approved, there will be uncertainty over the future of redevelopment agencies and their projects.
“Redevelopment is definitely in jeopardy,” Farfsing said. “And the next six weeks is going to be wild.”

Other City Council highlights:
Deputy City Manager Charlie Honeycutt presented an update of the construction progress of the new police station and emergency operations center. So far, the project is staying on budget.
The Council adopted a resolution to use Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, which are federal funds distributed through the Los Angeles County Small Cities program, according to Farfsing. Several projects proposed under this grant include a senior food distribution program. They also proposed a sidewalk construction project and other Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements.

Name Larry Forester
Age 63
Years residing in Signal Hill 24
Occupation Retired sales engineer

Larry Forester

Personal Information Single (LGBT)

Education BS in Civil Engineering, University of Notre Dame • MS in Ocean Engineering, Catholic University of America

Nonprofit/professional affiliations Board/past chair, Conservation Corps of Long Beach, helping disenfranchised young adults • Board, Urban Community Outreach, helping the homeless and children of low-income families • Advisory board, Long Beach Unified Educational Foundation, helping fund and promote education • Energy and Environment Sub-committee, SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments), Five-county MPO • Board, Los Angeles Division of the League of California Cites (88 cities) representing the Gateway Cities Council of Government (27 cities) • I-710 Project Committee, EIR/EIS for I-710 Freeway proposed modification

Goals if re-elected Keep our residents, businesses and visitors safe, with a strong and well equipped police department. Our new police station, under construction, has been a priority. • Fiscal responsibility in a recessionary climate that could last for several more years. We have reduced our budget 2 percent in each of the last two years and are planning a 3-percent reduction next year for a total of 7 percent. More will be reviewed as needed, all expenditures will be evaluated (Are they nice or necessary?) • Bring new revenue-generating businesses to our city. A new “materials handling” facility on the west side will generate a tipping fee to the city. Our loss of two car dealerships has been countered with expansion of one, replacement of another and a third still planned. • Keep Signal Hill the “city that could and did.”

Platform Work with all my fellow Council members to reach consensus, putting the city first • Fiscal responsibility • Strong partnership and involvement with many of the cities in the county and state for mutual goals: Gateway Cities Coalition of Government, Southern California Association of Governments, and the League of California Cities. • Environmentally responsible: storm water and the Los Angeles rivers, greenhouse gas reduction, reducing energy consumption, and sustainability • Continued constituent contact and accessibility • Experienced leadership

Endorsements Congressmember Laura Richardson • California State Senator Alan Lowenthal • California State Assembly Member Bonnie Lowenthal • Los Angeles County Supervisor Don Knabe • Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund

——————-

Name Tina L. Hansen
Age 51
Years residing in Signal Hill 20
Occupation   Deputy district attorney, County of Los Angeles
 

Personal Information  Married for 25 years in May, 6-year-old twins Benjamin and Kaitlin
 
Education BA in Speech Communication and Political Science, Pepperdine University • Juris Doctorate Degree, Hastings College of the Law, San Francisco (Graduated Order of the Coif– top 10 percent of law students across country)
 
Nonprofit/professional affiliations Current Positions: PTA Parliamentarian, Prisk Elementary • Daisy Girl Scout Troop Co-Leader Previous Positions  Board Chair and Fundraising Chair, Comprehensive Child Development • Chair, Public Safety Committee for League of California Cities • Board, League of California Cities • Member, Public Safety Committee, League of National Cities
 
Goals if re-elected Continue to show fiscal responsibility and guide the city through these difficult economic times while maintaining high-quality services to all of our residents and commercial partners. • Avoid lay-offs and furloughs for our employees. • Protect our redevelopment funds so that we can continue to provide jobs, attract new  businesses and continue to grow our sales tax base. • Build a new library which includes a historical collection. • Begin meeting immediately with LBUSD regarding Burroughs Elementary. • Make sure our infrastructure is maintained. • Diversify our revenue base with projects like the EDCO transfer station. • Continue to create open space and recreational opportunities.         
 
Platform Public service, not politics. •  I came onto the Council with a vision to improve the quality of life for all our residents. • From affordable housing at Las Brisas to homes for the first-time home-buyer in the PCH corridor to homes on the top of the hill, we have created a diverse and dynamic community. • I have always supported expansion of our parks, public art and trail system. • I am equally committed to continued commercial growth, infrastructure repair and fiscal responsibility. • Under my leadership the city will continue to grow and prosper and move successfully through the economic downturn.      
 
Endorsements  Congressmember Laura Richardson • State Senator Alan Lowenthal • State Assembly Member Bonnie Lowenthal • Los Angeles County Supervisor Don Knabe • City Treasurer Emerson Fersch

——————–

Name  Matthew D. Simmons
Age  35
Years residing in Signal Hill  2 plus
Occupation  Local business owner

Personal Information Married to Melissa Rosenthal, 2-year-old daughter Sophie

Education MBA, University of Southern California • BA in Psychology, UC Santa Cruz

Nonprofit/professional affiliations Board of Directors, AJCC • Graduate, Long Beach Federation New Leaders 

Goals if elected When elected, I will balance the budget. In just two years, our economic reserves plummeted from $4 million to $1.2 million. We need to live within our means today. I outline multi-million dollar spending cuts on SignalHillVoice.com. • I will increase property values through view-protection policies and will put resident needs above the wants of developers. • By spending wisely, we will be able to widen Cherry near PCH, which will reduce traffic inside our community. • My goal is to be accessible to everyone, and I can be reached at (562) 546-2277 or mrsimmons@gmail.com.

Platform I am the taxpayer’s watchdog. • Signal Hill spends money recklessly, which puts our basic civic services at risk. Our City paid a building official $159,569 for three hours of work per week. We drilled a $900,000 water well in a contaminated location, despite the advice of experts. Our Council just approved the first steps to issue a NEW $11.5 million bond. This approval is fiscally irresponsible, especially while we operate at a multi-million dollar deficit. • I will keep you informed at SignalHillVoice.com, and we will put a stop to our spending problem.

Endorsements Former Signal Hill Councilmember Ennis Neff

Signal Hill Park
Community Center
1780 E. Hill St.

Family Church of Signal Hill
(formerly Signal Hill Christian Center)
2094 Cherry Ave.

Willow Ridge Clubhouse
2518 E. Willow St.

Signal Hill Vice Mayor Larry Forester and Councilmember Tina Hansen are inviting the public to join them for coffee and questions Wednesday, Feb. 2 at 7pm at the Signal Hill It’s A Grind, 2162 E. Willow St.

Long Beach Mayor Bob Foster at Tuesday night’s address.

By CJ Dablo
Staff Writer

At his State of the City address, Long Beach Mayor Bob Foster announced a direction for the upcoming year that included a call to change the Public Employees Retirement System.
When Foster took the stage at the city’s Center Theater on Tuesday night to deliver his annual address, he acknowledged the city’s achievements and its ability to adapt to a new financial reality when budget cuts reduced staff and city services.
“First, government was too big,” Foster said. “While few in government want to admit it, we were all just a bit too complacent in the past. Today we perform needed services with far fewer resources.”
Foster highlighted the accomplishments of the police department, which announced last week that crime rates have seen a dramatic drop. The murder rate is at its lowest since 1971, he said, and violent crime is down by 13 percent.
The mayor, who was elected to a second term in July, praised the city’s ability to obtain federal stimulus funds to pay for infrastructure projects around the city. In addition, despite the financial hardship, the city was able to make significant breakthroughs to turn around its finances.
“We not only bridged a $23-million budget gap, but we did so while maintaining our $9-million Budget Stabilization fund,” Foster said.
But Foster presented several concerns about the city’s finances, and he focused on a proposal to make significant changes to the pension funds of public employees.
The urgency of the need for pension reform has been stressed by city representatives in the past. According to the city manager’s projections over the next decade or two, the city’s employee pension system is underfunded by $1.2 billion.
To help resolve this problem, Foster proposed to apply contracted raises to the employees’ portion of pension costs.
“Over the next several years, the employees’ contribution would increase until their full and fair share was reached,” he said. “Employees would not see the raise in their check, but their pay would not decline, and it would gradually get to a point where they were paying their fair share.”
Although Foster did not specify during this speech about how long employees would be predicted to work without effectively seeing a raise in their paycheck, the mayor outlined other details in a proposed plan for pension reform.
Foster also recommended new pension rules for new employees, which include a proposal to raise the retirement age from 50 to 55 for public safety workers. The retirement age for other new city workers would be changed from 55 to 60.
Foster estimated that the cumulative deficit from fiscal years 2012 to 2014 would be about $59 million. If the city implemented the changes he proposed, the city’s deficit would be cut by more than half to $28 million, he said.
Four labor organizations agreed to the dramatic changes to the pension system, according to Foster, but three of the largest employee organizations did not agree to the proposed changes. The groups that represented the police, fire and machinists “took their raises and rejected the reforms,” he said.
Foster stressed the need for urgency. “But the future of public pensions is so clear– they cannot be sustained. Claims were made and will be again that we are putting life and property at risk calling for reductions in all areas. That’s simply not so. It is the unreasonable rejection of reform and an ingrained entitlement mentality that puts our city at risk.”
Foster asked to confront the problems now. “We will continue to engage in collective bargaining to bring these changes about,” he said, adding that he was not optimistic about the outcome of their efforts.
“Therefore,” he continued, “if I am unsuccessful in bargaining for these changes, I will propose a ballot initiative that will constrain future mayors and councils from providing any more in pension benefits than those outlined above. These restrictions, if passed, will go into effect when the current contracts with our unions end,” he said.
Details of his proposed ballot measure were not available from the mayor’s office.
“Our future demands that we stabilize our finances and put our house in order,” he said.
Following Foster’s speech, Seventh District Councilmember James Johnson said he supports the mayor and the need for pension reform.
“The time has come now to take on the long-term challenges,” Johnson said. “Because if we don’t do it, what we’re doing is taking all of our problems and giving up to our children saying ‘you deal with it.’ And that’s simply immoral,” he said. Johnson noted that he ran for office on a campaign to fix pension reform.
Fourth District Councilmember Patrick O’Donnell approved of Foster’s overall positive message. He said that the pension reform issue affects his district because it affects the city’s coffers. “It affects our ability to finance the everyday operations and services that people want delivered: police, fire, streets, sidewalks, libraries,” he said.
O’Donnell wasn’t aware of the ballot initiative that Foster had proposed until Tuesday night. The councilmember said that he would have to review the ballot measure and its legal implications.
“But”, he added, “It would be my preference that those issues are worked out at the table with the employee associations so that we don’t have to go to a ballot measure. The answer here is people being reasonable, not people being political.”