Showing posts with label City Council Meeting Alerts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label City Council Meeting Alerts. Show all posts

September 6, 2020

Why the budget and the budget process is broken in Long Beach California

As there is yet another budget hearing coming up in Long Beach on September 8 2020 we thought we would use our blog post as our comments. Get them into cityclerk@longbeach.gov before noon 9/7/20. Heaven knows these "Citywide Community budget meetings" were a waste of everyone's time.(which we also had to pay city staffers for as we are taxpayers)

 

Long Beach is currently in a budget crisis brought about mainly because of the covid-19 crisis.  Of course it's a double whammy situation where the city spent more money than it had on emergency type services and as a result overpaid for these services (which were under delivered or did not provide much value) For example there were tons of private Labs that were being paid a very costly premium for test results that were being delivered seven and eight days after the test. Anyone that knows anything about testing said that's completely worthless. Any test result delivered after 48 hours should never have been paid for but of course government never demands that kind of accountability from private contractors.


On top of that because of the economic crisis and less sales tax is being generated we have a double whammy.  So now it appears the most local entities are waiting for the state to get a windfall of money from the federal government who of course can print money regardless of its deficit.  State and local governments can't print money but they use other budget shenanigans and tricks to make it look like the budget gets “balanced” every year.


Unlike Lakewood which is mostly a contract City Long Beach tries to provide most services through employees that are employed by the city. This is horrendously cost inefficient because these costs are fixed. Once these people are hired they are basically never fired and you have to pay for their pensions, healthcare vacation and other costs basically as long as they're alive and they are usually very costly employees. The more costly employees are the ones that work in the office and shuffle paper and get very little done in terms of infrastructure and repairs.


In addition there are a number of things that Long Beach claims it has to purchase and it does a very bad job in negotiating good prices. Here are two examples. City spends $372,327 on TWO Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD trucks (2020 Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD start at $34,600) AND $539,331 on TWO CNG-fueled 2021 Freightliner M2112 pothole patch trucks, (LB apparently patches so many streets that we need two new trucks?) Who negotiated these prices for these trucks and why are we buying something NEW that's so expensive right now during a budget crisis? Do we have to have these trucks right now? Are we selling off the used trucks are we trading them in what are we getting for them? These questions are never asked and never presented in the budget or any publicly disseminated documents. As for the pothole trucks no needs were spelled out. Zero. You want them Public Works Dept you got them! No questions asked.


Then you look at outside contracting for services and you have a similar problem. Really no transparency at all in terms of how many hours of time you're getting the hourly rate or bonuses being paid, overhead being paid how many hours of services are you being provided with, what specific tasks are going to be completed etc. Here is a recent example:” a fourth amendment to Contract No. 34265 with West Coast Arborists, Inc., of Anaheim, CA, for as-needed tree trimming services, to extend the term through March 31, 2021, and increase the amount by $3,400,000, for a revised total amount not to exceed $11,340,000. (Citywide)”

 

So taxpayers are paying almost 11.5 million dollars for tree trimming but there's really not much of an indication as to what exactly were going to get for that. Even if you assume that these people are being paid $15 an hour and you do the math that gives us about 59 hours a day of tree trimming assuming 2080 hours per year working time at 8 hours per day 5 days a week. But again this says “as needed” (determined by who?). So that might mean that no trees are being trimmed or half the amount. Again clear as mud.


Contract costs are too high because I assume the city relies on “low bid”. The city should be setting the maximum contract prices with bonuses for early completion. The city should be setting a (realistic low ball) maximum amount for these contracts before the bids ever come in. We also have to assume that there are multiple bids coming in on these projects and I doubt that seriously.  My suspicion is certain favorite companies that contribute to campaigns are invited to submit a bid with a wink knowing that these bids are going to get selected because they're the only bid that's being made.  Again the city should set a maximum price for an amount of service and then provide some sort of incentives for early completion or other types of Contract objectives that can be objectively verified.


With respect to labor provided by city employees of course the picture is much more grim. There really is no way to significantly reduce the costs of employee labor.  This is why City employees should be rarely hired and outside contractors should be used because it's much easier to control costs over time when you have a budget problem. 


The Police Department and the fire department are classic examples of the two costliest groups of city employees. Lawsuit settlements due to police shootings and arrests are not helpful either. These depts are heavily unionized and the unions control all labor activity and contract negotiations.


We were recently told that the city is budgeting $200,000 per police officer. (That does not include the cost of special units K-9 units, bomb units, helicopters all sorts of special Patrol units, management, office staff, vehicle costs etc) Of course the best way to do the math is to take the total police budget of about 264 million and divided by the number of sworn officers which is about 792 which gives you about $333,000 per year per officer. Now to make matters worse because of the BLM protests and other Union Shenanigans we are now in a situation where every car has to have two officers so we've cut the number of cars in half and so we're spending anywhere between $400,000 to $650,000 a year for each police vehicle you see driving around on patrol.  What's even better with police and fire is they tend to start work at age 25 to 26 or later and then they retire at 50 and their retirement income is at least the highest amount they've ever been paid in their lives. That continues on until they die and also includes Healthcare and a bunch of other cost-of-living perks so you can see how this adds up when you're paying for hundreds and hundreds of officers that don't even work for you anymore. And you're paying for them at a much higher rate than you are for officers currently patrolling the streets. Eventually this house of cards is going to collapse.


There are no efficiency studies being done by people that don't curry favor with the unions or with the city. All the efficiency studies are done by the departments themselves or by those individuals that pass muster with the union. Apparently because the fire department is so popular in Long Beach in terms of public polling they basically came back and said we're not cutting our budget at all for 2021…. so take that City Council. The fire department and the police department are probably the least cost-efficient agencies in the city and use up the most tax money. For example the whole privatization of ambulance services in Long Beach has never been realistically looked at. The reason of course is if you do that you will lose union jobs and give jobs to private companies which cost less. With respect to the the police department they're finally starting to get smart and realizing that they have to have more civilian staff to do a lot of the functions within the department that don't require sworn police officers. (de-fund protests no doubt helping that argument) This is just an example of the stupidity and union nonsense involved when trying to get even simple things done like the administrative enforcement Lakewood did with respect to fireworks.


Another budget-busting problem we have is that a relatively small percentage of the payroll of city employees is too low for those that actually hold shovels versus those that shuffle paper and the paper shufflers in the people in the office tend to cost even more money that other low level worker bee employees This is likely the reason why it takes so long for potholes to get filled and sidewalks to get fixed; there's not enough people actually doing the work.


Another problem with the budget is that the airport revenue/fines and the oil revenue, and the port that money is not being allocated wisely. It's typically trapped in a way that keeps it within the particular Department that it comes from. Fix that.


An ongoing problem with infrastructure ( potholes streets sidewalks bike paths trees parks and other sorts of things) is these were all created many years ago when labor was cheap but there were never any budgets created to support the maintenance of these items and the bills are coming due on almost all of these things especially sewers electricity and water supply. The new money is all allocated for all new projects which get federal and state funding but none of that money is ever allocated or can be allocated towards the maintenance of these projects for 20 or 30 years in the future. Bad idea as it leads to where we are now.


The city spends its time chasing objectives of Sacramento. Not enough of our budget is spent on core infrastructure needs. Too much of it is spent on socialism and other pet projects of administrations. The city received budget funding to create “open streets” for covid yet when it did neighborhood surveys no one wanted the streets to be blocked off from vehicles so the children can play in the streets only to be run over by local delivery trucks. But that money comes with strings attached and you have to spend it on things voters dont want. Much of our budget is being allocated to social projects and not for infrastructure and this loss of focus is responsible for the problem with the infrastructure.


The budget process has very little transparency and taxpayers are never given a seat at the table when Union contracts and other issues are negotiated. There are very few people that could take a look at the current 146 page page proposed budget document and make heads or tails of any of these issues raised above and most don't even care to do it. Most rely of course on their city council member to fight for their objectives. And we see how well that has worked out. 


The budget itself is very obscure and does not provide taxpayers with a clear picture of cost increases cost allocations what goes for health care what goes for pensions what goes for office workers what goes for actual people that perform labor for the city. 


Finally we need to stop penalizing departments for not spending all their budget. They need to be rewarded for not spending all their budget on frivolous matters such as new vehicles. Unfortunately many of these things are going to take many years to change.  California as a whole is running out of money and that includes all of their cities. Cities are still allowed to file bankruptcy (states are not) and a number of cities in California have filed bankruptcy including Stockton. In that case the bankruptcy actually helped Stockton to “de-fund” (reduce funding to) their police department and rethink how they look at public safety. "House Democrats included nearly $1 trillion in state and local aid in the relief bill they passed in May, but the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, has said he doesn’t want to hand out a “blank check” to pay for what he considers fiscal mismanagement, including the enormous public-pension obligations some states have accrued. There has been little movement in that stalemate lately."


The reason we have a budget problem is the city is using "other people's money" (yours and mine) and they dont give a damn. Their “solution” to all problems is to shovel more money into the trough (Like Measure A...how is that vote tally suit going? ). At the end of the day it's not really their problem they're going to continue to get paid for going to work, continue to get their nearly free health care, and they're going to continue to get their ludicrously costly pensions. Meanwhile city services and infrastructure spending will just crawl to a complete standstill and our city will decay even further. Until people show up at City Hall with “pitchforks and torches” this is not going to change. The only thing that will really make any difference is to elect a majority of the city council to come in from outside city government not feeding from the trough (real outsiders).  They will have to take a hard look from the outside as to how the budget is going to have to work going forward into these very lean years which we are going to be facing for the next 5 to 10 years most likely ( assuming continued fires, floods, climate change, power outages, disasters, earthquakes, pandemics Etc) California is almost in a constant state of emergency now. Long Beach is in the same situation. It's on life support.

 

Long Beach Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Long Beach, CA | A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™ | click here to receive LAAG posts by email

June 6, 2014

water and trash service rate increase hearing at Lakewood City Council Chambers on June 24, 2014 at 7:30 pm


Just so that everyone is aware there is a water and trash service rate increase hearing at Lakewood City Council Chambers on June 24, 2014 at 7:30 pm. You must object to the rate increase before that time in writing (presumably to the Lakewood city clerk at dhayward@lakewoodcity.org not to our site) which will be much more effective that rambling on at the meeting. (we find that communicating with the City is much more effective if done in writing so that there is a paper trail) In classic Lakewood "non transparency" style no information whatsoever has been posted about this rate increase (on www.lakewoodcity.org) as of this posting (and the city has been planning this since at least March 2014). We made the following public records request to the city this week and we will try (if we get a timely response from Lakewood) to post what we get back (if anything) on this site. We need this information well in advance of 6/22/14 so that we can respond to the proposed increase in writing before the 6/24/14 hearing. Hopefully with the new "bolstering" of the California Constitution and the Public Records Act under the recently passed Proposition 42 (on June 3, 2014) we can expect to see local government entities give a little bit more respect to public records act requests.

Here is what we were seeking in the public records request: 

1. copies of all staff reports or 3rd party reports and all attachments regarding the rate increase and its need and or justifications

2. Any surveys, studies or any other documentation showing water and trash rates in any other cities done at any time in the last two years

3. communications to / from the Edco trash/waste company wherein they justify and or explain the need for a price or rate increase

4. Any proposed amendments to the Lakewood municipal code regarding the rate increase

5. Any forms or rules proposed for protests to the rate increase

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™ click here to receive LAAG posts by email

May 21, 2013

US Supreme Court takes up issue of using prayers to open city council meetings


We have to say this has always been a pet peeve of ours among the many "practices", informal or otherwise, that Lakewood uses in its meetings. Hopefully this "practice" will soon go away as well. We have never understood why people insist on injecting their particular brand of religion into government. I say lets open with the pledge of allegiance (to the USA of course). That I support. But paying homage to one "brand" or "formulation" of religion? No thanks. Go to church and pray 12 times a week. Pray at home before the meeting. Pray to yourself before the meeting starts. Hell sit in a group in the audience and pray silently while holding hands up in the air. But don't make me have to sit there and listen to your version of a prayer recited in my face and sanctioned (hell even promoted) by the city council. And its televised no less (while public comments are not...hmm how convenient). This is nothing more than city council member pandering to their Christian religious bases (the same 2500 people that vote for them every time). The "open a government meeting with a prayer" routine is much more offensive and much more violative than prayer in schools as its literally the government itself promoting religion, directly and in your face, in conjunction with the governmental legislative process. This is why there are so many problems with the new governments in Egypt, Libya and Iraq; the "religious majority" wants to shut the religious minority out of a say in their own government altogether. Its a huge problem. Its why government needs to remain secular and religion should not become or "run" government. Also lets not get into the whole "religious history" of the founding fathers. Suffice it to say most did not practice "today's version of evangelical Christianity". But I'll leave that for the "revisionist" history writers.

The US Supreme Court sadly decided this was not a problem in May 2014.

As was aptly stated abut this matter recently in the NY Times:

Legislative Prayer

The case concerning prayers, Town of Greece v. Galloway, No. 12-696, came from Greece, a town near Rochester. For more than a decade starting in 1999, the town board began its public meetings with a prayer from a “chaplain of the month.” Town officials said that members of all faiths and atheists were welcome to give the opening prayer. In practice, the federal appeals court in New York said, almost all of the chaplains were Christian. “A substantial majority of the prayers in the record contained uniquely Christian language,” Judge Guido Calabresi wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel of the court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. “Roughly two-thirds contained references to ‘Jesus Christ,’ ‘Jesus,’ ‘Your Son’ or the ‘Holy Spirit.'” Two town residents sued, saying the prayers ran afoul of the First Amendment’s prohibition of the government establishment of religion. The appeals court agreed. “The town’s prayer practice must be viewed as an endorsement of a particular religious viewpoint,” Judge Calabresi wrote.

In 1983, in Marsh v. Chambers, the Supreme Court upheld the Nebraska Legislature’s practice of opening its legislative sessions with an invocation from a paid Presbyterian minister, saying that such ceremonies were “deeply embedded in the history and tradition of this country.” David Cortman, a lawyer for the town, said its practices were consistent with that tradition. “Americans today should be as free as the founders were to pray,” he said in a statement. “The founders prayed while drafting our Constitution’s Bill of Rights.” (LAAG Editor: Perhaps (I was not there) but did they pray openly as an official start to the meeting or silently? Which religion? Also note this was BEFORE the first amendment was finalized and adopted and interpreted; perhaps the prayer gave them the inspiration to have the first amendment leave the prayer out?; also keep in mind these are the same guys that owned slaves yet wrote "...all men are created equal..." etc.) The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, the executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the group behind the lawsuit, said the Supreme Court should bar prayers in governmental settings like town meetings. “A town council meeting isn’t a church service, and it shouldn’t seem like one,” he said in a statement. “Government can’t serve everyone in the community when it endorses one faith over others. That sends the clear message that some are second-class citizens based on what they believe about religion.”


Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™ click here to receive LAAG posts by email

January 31, 2011

Full length video of the Lakewood city council candidate forum Jan 19, 2011

Update 4-13-11: We note that the Lakewood Chamber of Commerce has since removed the video link to all the candidates pontificating and promising what they would do on 1/19/11. So now if Jeff Wood or Larry Van Nostran fail to come thru on what they said at the debate you will never know it. See how that works? History vanishes in the blink of an eye! Apparently the video was removed as the internet ran out of space..lol..

1/31/11 orig. post:
We have obtained a link to the video taken of the candidate forum on January 19, 2011. We posted an earlier story here. The link to the two video segments is here. There is a Part 1 (59 minutes long) and a Part 2 (32 minutes long). The quality is good but unfortunately it is Apple Quicktime so you can follow this link to download the Apple Quicktime plug in for your web browser which you will need to view it unless you already use a Mac. We used Firefox 3.6 for windows and it worked fine. Problem is we don't know how long this link will stay up, we have no idea how much bandwidth there is at this site nor what the quality is like for people on slow internet connections. You can pick "tiny, small, medium, or large" file sizes so this likely affects download time. Once we find another place this will be aired (if you cannot watch here) then we will let you know. Again we won't repeat our comments from our last posting on the forum. You be the judge after watching the video and then let us know what you think and which questions you feel remain to be answered (or answered better, or even asked). We are still awaiting the candidates response to the LAAG questionnaire we sent out on January 7, 2011. We feel that will be much more informative than the candidate forum if the candidates give it some thought and give truthful non evasive answers. But again this is politics so lets not expect too much from campaign promises.

Subsequent to the above posting were were also provided the following schedule:

Public Access TV - Time Warner Cable Channel 36 on the following dates and times (LAAG was not given the schedule for Verizon FIOS TV users)

Thurs 2/17 7 - 9:30 pm
Tues 2/22 7 - 9:30 pm
Sun 2/27 2 - 3:30 pm
Thurs 3/3 7 - 9:30 pm
Sun 3/6 2 - 3:30 pm

Cerritos College Radio - 1700 on the AM Radio dial.
or
www.cerritos.edu/wpmd

Go to the website and click on the time to listen online

The Forum will be aired on the radio at the following times:
Every Thursday from 8 - 10 pm
Every Sunday from 2 - 4 pm
until the elections


Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™ click here to receive LAAG posts by email

January 20, 2011

Brief report on the Lakewood city council candidate forum Jan 19, 2011

Update: Please see our Transparency Pledge for Candidates and our Candidate Review

Supposedly there were more than 100 people in attendance last night (not including organizers, staff and other gadflies). I don't know. Barely over 100 maybe. Lots of questions not asked. The questions were being cherry picked for a "mix of softball and hardball" questions and there was a preference for questions that were not multi faceted or hard hitting. The last question was "Who inspires you" I guess they could have also asked what the candidates favorite color was! There were at least 5 people that I heard complaining that their questions were not asked (they all seemed like good pointed questions albeit likely difficult to answer...but that's what we all came for right?)

A number of candidates talked abut experience (as is talked about in national elections) but as it has been said time and time before experience does not often matter as much in these small part time offices. What generally maters more is general "organizational competence" and intelligence, thinking outside the box, being independent and a self starter and not being a sheep and following what the other council members do just because "thats the way it has always been done" Our feeling is that existing council members prefer that candidates serve a long time on the city's commissions (before they run for office) so they can get to know them and see if they will be a "team player" once on the council.

All the candidates were pro-LASD, green initiatives, attracting more business etc. Again this stuff is all easy. Who is against trees? Thanks to LAAG forcing the issue most seemed to be in favor of transparency but talk is cheap on that subject. We see no evidence in the track records of some candidates that they are true promoters of /believers in transparency.  LAAG plans on getting all the candidates to sign or agree to a "transparency pledge" before the election. (this includes Mr. Von Nostran) More on that later. I think the city of Bell debacle taught us that lack of transparency and voter complacency/ignorance is a deadly mix. I think we all know from national elections that even IF you get a pledge in writing the candidates still flip flop and weasel out of their commitments. But its better than vague and aloof statements made at a meeting.

The entire program was taped by the Chamber of Commerce staff and we have an email in to them (and all the candidates) asking that the entire video be placed on the web for all to see at their leisure. City representatives stated that they did not want it posted on the city website as it was a political matter. We are waiting for the Chamber's response. Surely they cant be in need of funds.

Once we get back all the candidates questionnaires we will post them online. We hope to have them soon. We then plan on posting a transparency pledge and once the candidates have had time to support that or not we will then make our recommendations for who should fill the two council seats March 8, 2011.

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™ click here to receive LAAG posts by email

January 12, 2011

City Council Candidate forum set for Jan 19, 2011 in Lakewood, CA

There is a Candidates Forum sponsored or hosted by the Lakewood Chamber of Commerce where you can meet and ask (hopefully meaningful and pertinent) questions of all four "new" Candidates running for Lakewood City Council in the March 8, 2011 election. (Candidate marc Titel is a former councilman and Larry Van Nostran is running for reelection) Before the event we hope to have more info on the candidates responses to LAAG's campaign questionnaire sent out to the candidates last week.

The details posted on the Lakewood Chamber of Commerce site are:
Wednesday January 19, 2011 (date on Chamber site is 2010!)
6:30 pm - 8:30 pm
Sycamore Centre Ballroom 5000 Clark Ave.
Free Admission

Why this was not posted anywhere on the Lakewood City website (including its calendar of all events in the city) is a mystery but we don't think it was merely an oversight given how we know things work over there.

LAAG has also obtained further details about the event (which were/are not posted of course anywhere but on this site so far)

1. Lakewood Chamber of Commerce (LCOC) is taking only written questions from the audience the night of the event. LCOC are providing pens and 6 x 4 blank cards for people to submit their questions that evening.(The LCOC did not indicate a maximum number of questions but we presume it will be limited only by the two hour duration of the event; we hope its not filled up with fluffy speeches)
2. LCOC is taping the entire 2 hr event for submission to public access TV. Broadcast times and lengths are determined by public access TV. (which LAAG understands is controlled by the city)
3. No banners, T-shirts, or campaigning at the event except by the candidates, which will be allowed to have campaign materials on a table provided for anyone to take.
4. Rules of the forum will be explained at the beginning of the event to all present.
5. Format is a rotating question and answer format with each candidate answering the question.

LAAG wishes to add that if you cannot be present you can submit your (hopefully meaningful and pertinent) question(s) to us with your full name, phone and or email address on it so we can submit it for you at the forum (if allowed to do so by the LCOC).

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™ click here to receive LAAG posts by email

September 14, 2010

Getting out while the getting is good... Howard Chambers finally calls it quits

You have to hand it to Howard for great timing. 34 years as city manager must be a state or national record. He has stress? Well no doubt that has increased since the City of Bell debacle, not to mention being "outed" here, here, and here. Oh well he can join his other retired Lakewood Calpers pals and live carefree with lifetime medical and pension benefits that will no doubt cost us taxpayers millions. (the "Lakewood Six" currently costing us taxpayers $771,322.56 Annually) Much like our other noblemen in the state legislature. And for what you ask? Oh I am sure every blade of grass in Lakewood will be dedicated to Howard tonight. I expect some sort of freeway or building to be named after him shortly. Perhaps a new "self promotion shrine" we can pay for. lol indeed.

All we can hope is that the city council resets the clock on these outlandish City Manager salaries and they are more in line with (or have a rational relationship to) other cities with similar populations and total employee counts. But knowing the city council I doubt that. Again the hiring situation works much the same as it did in Bell and on corporate boards. "You pay me well and I will reward you later...some how.." So the game goes on and no one is watching the till. Oh and as for potential candidates to fill Howard's spot I hear there are some dudes from Bell looking for a sweet job....

So LAAG says "c'est la vie! Howard". And I am sure you will keep us residents posted on what you're up to just like you have for the last 38 years. Yeah right. Oh and we have to take Howard at his word that he is in fact retiring for good and will not change his mind, like Donald Waldie did last year, and not going to "run" some other city (for a "bigger" salary increase and nifty "pension spike") and then do a "double dip" on his pension. Time will tell.

http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_16068235
City Manager Howard Chambers will end 38-year Lakewood career
By Phillip Zonkel, Staff Writer
Posted: 09/13/2010 08:57:06 PM PDT

LAKEWOOD - The man who has been a fixture at Lakewood City Hall for 38 years - helping balance budgets and maintain parks - is leaving.

Howard Chambers, city manager for 34 of those years, will publicly announce his retirement at tonight's City Council meeting.

Chambers said his doctor has told him for the past year to manage his stress better. The primary stress culprit is his job, Chambers said.

"Life in the public sector is extremely stressful," [LAAG: "you betcha, ever since Bell corruption story broke]
said Chambers, 65, from his Brea residence. "My body used to metabolize stress like a protein shake. Now it kicks my butt. I wish I could turn back the clock 20 years."

The council will soon begin the process of selecting Chambers' successor, said city spokesman Bill Grady.

The two-hour round trip commute between Brea and Lakewood also was a deciding factor in his retirement, Chambers said. [LAAG: I guess living in the city was out of the question in a city you manage]

Chambers is widely considered the California city manager with the longest tenure in the same city. Before becoming city manager, Chambers, from 1972 to 1976, was the executive assistant to the city manager.

Between 1969 and 1972, Chambers was Rosemead's assistant city manager.

"Howard's entire career reflects an abiding commitment to all of us who live and work here," said Lakewood Mayor Joseph Esquivel. "He truly loves Lakewood and the results can be seen in every neighborhood." [LAAG: please be specific]

Donald Waldie, the assistant to the city manager, was hired by Chambers in December 1977, and said Chambers' management style was supportive and collaborative.

"Howard offered a vision for Lakewood, one where everyone worked together to make a safe, family-orientated city, and shared it with senior managers and city work forces," Waldie said. "That vision made it easy to see the way."

Chambers' ties to Lakewood are lifelong. He grew up near Mayfair Park and worked at the YMCA.

A park director encouraged him to become a recreation leader, a path that led him to become a park director and a fixture at city hall.

After befriending the city administrator at the time, Chambers showed an interest in public administration and began taking classes at Cal State Long Beach.

After earning his degree, Chambers interned at Lakewood for two years, handling youth services. He then went to work with Rosemead as an assistant city manager.

In 1972, Chambers returned to Lakewood, securing the post of executive assistant.

Under Chambers' leadership, Lakewood developed the Civic Center, the Weingart Senior Center, the renovations of the John Sanford Todd Community Center and Mayfair Park, The Centre at Sycamore Plaza, Rynerson Park and the expansion and modernization of the Lakewood Sheriff's Station. [LAAG: thats it?]

Chambers said he takes pride in presenting balanced budgets, managing to keep park programs going and maintaining streets and other infrastructure in times of recession.

Chambers' pride and enthusiasm for the work makes it more difficult to retire.

"You don't know how much I'm going to miss it," he said.

phillip.zonkel@presstelegram.com, 562-499-1258
Want to go?

What: Lakewood City Council meeting.

Where: City Council chambers at The Centre at Sycamore Plaza, 5000 Clark Ave.

When: 7:30 p.m., today

Watch: Broadcast live on CityTV 31 and at www.lakewoodcity.org.


Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™ click here to receive LAAG posts by email

April 27, 2009

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle? Thats what we think of Lakewood's half baked attempt at curbside recycling

It is good to see Lakewood join the majority of cities in LA County and step up to curbside recycling to try and reach the AB 939 mandated diversion goals. Lakewood is quite a few years late to the curbside recycling game however. Bellflower for example made the switch at least 10 years ago. Even Paramount beat Lakewood! But better late than never. We called into question over a year ago Lakewood's recycling percentage "claims". Your slide presentation implies that Lakewood is still not meeting its diversion and recycling goals. It also appears that Lakewood is in the bottom 5% of cities in LA county as far as diversion rates.

I saw the staff presentation slide show (there was no written report). I hope that Lakewood has surveyed all the other similar cities to learn what works and what does not.

Here are some areas we are currently concerned about your proposed plan:

1. Cost. Yes we know you indicated that costs will be the same (only thru 2010) as the current collection service but there were no surveys done to compare Lakewood's new service to other cities service. We hope that the city surveys all other cities with similar programs to determine if the proposed month costs are above or below the average (and posts the results of that survey promptly on its website) Also it would seem that since residents were now doing the sorting themselves instead of being sorted by a facility, that costs would go down. Perhaps you should give small carts away free but charge for all larger ones.

2. Green waste. Keeping our old cans for green waste seems like a responsible idea but we do not know of any other cities doing that. We also see an opportunity for fraud here by residents slipping garbage into the old cans. It also needs to be limited by the numbers of old cans residents can set out. The other problem is that this preserves the quaint "back alley" look to Lakewood streets by keeping all the old beat up, mismatched, overflowing trash cans instead of replacing them with all new carts that match, have lids that stay closed and dont tip over so easily.

3. Remember the the three R's that you like to put on all your fliers. REDUCE, reuse, recycle. As far as "reduce" (the first 'R') residents need to be charged as they are for every other utility: by the amount they use. The more waste you put into the system the more you should be charged. Some of this cost can be recovered by charging more per month for the collection of larger carts and for the collection of more than one standard sized green waste can (self supplied). Failure to do this might cause residents to think your three 'R' campaign is a bit hypocritical or that its all hot air or 'greenhouse gas' anyway...

4. No penalties for co-mingling trash with recyclables? Well this is typical of Lakewood's lack of enforcement of other city ordinances. The fear of irritating a few residents and loosing a few votes paralyzes the councils thinking and action. If some lazy person does not want to do their part why should other residents doing their job by separating recyclables pay more (through increased duping costs passed along to all residents) for those that are simply too lazy to do what many residents are already doing? This lack of penalty (and likely enforcement) will doom the entire purpose of the system.

5. Parking (yes the sacred 'P' word) With trucks making three passes in front of your house the city better reconsider allowing parking on the street on trash days. No parking will make it safer and faster to collect the trash. Also as the new trucks are automated, not parking on the street would allow them to line up better with the new cans and pick them up with less human manual input for alignment and collection.

6. Scavengers. Most cities enact ordinances that prevent scavengers from profiting off the separated curbside recyclables. As there is no separation going on now (except for those of us that really care about the environment) there is no need to prevent scavengers. But once separation is widespread (we hope) then scavengers will be a problem as we will be the only city in the area with no anti scavenging ordinance. This is likely to be a problem.

Overall I think Lakewood has finally woke up and realized that they have to put some teeth into their recycling effort or there will be some serious cost increases hitting Lakewood residents in the near future. But from the looks of this plan all we see is non sorted trash and just enough non compliance to ruin any chances of lowering our "tipping" or dumping fees. Lakewood's three R's are just what we thought: just words printed on slick paper ("Lakewood Living" newsletters) that fill the landfill. (oh and we would like to know what percentage of that paper is "post consumer recycled")


Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA
A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™

click here to receive LAAG posts by email

December 11, 2007

Agenda item for 12/11/07 city council meeting

Very cryptic item on the agenda for the 12/11/07 city council meeting:

"CLOSED SESSION: Utility Users Tax CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code §54956.9(b) in one case "

Here is the agenda link: http://www.lakewoodcity.org/council_n_coms/city_council_agenda.asp

If anyone has any information on this please pass it along to us. Does this mean that the city is proposing a new or additional city utility users tax?

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA
A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™