Mysterious Case of the Missing Voting Materials

Or Why They Should Never Have Closed Redondo Ave. Post Office

I emailed the city clerk in early April to ask why none of the voters in my house had received the city “Voter Guide.” The guide was to include a list of candidates in the April Primary and statements by those candidates explaining why they should be elected. The response was interesting. The clerk’s office said they checked with the vendor that did the printing and mailing. The vendor allegedly stated that all were delivered.

As a former elected official and candidate, don’t you think I would notice when I don’t receive these kind of materials?

And it appears others did not receive their voting information guide as well. The last week of April several people posted on Facebook that they had just received their April Primary materials – after the election.

Oh, those poor candidates who paid $1,300 to have their ballot statement printed and then to find out it never got to the voters. Was this a mistake or on purpose or because Long Beach let the US Postal Service close down the Redondo Avenue mass mailing center without so much as a whimper.

I have talked with some people in the post office, who asked to remain behind the scenes. Yep, they tell me that indeed “voting materials” were just received recently that were dated for the April Primary election in Long Beach. When people asked if they were to still deliver the pamphlets, they were told that “yes” they have been paid for. By the way, because Long Beach no longer has the Redondo Avenue mass mailing center, the materials were mailed in Los Angeles and apparently sat there.

Great.

Now we are less than one month until the June 5 election. There is a “run off” in the 5th council district and an important ballot Measure M. The June election “Voting Guide”  is nowhere in sight.

This “guide” is critical to the June election. Not because of the remaining candidate statements but because the guide is supposed to contain an “impartial analysis” from the city attorney about Measure M. It also contains statements “pro” and “con” concerning whether or not voters should allow the mayor and City Council to take up to 12 percent of the revenues of the gas, water and sewer utilities.

So I am including the analysis and these statements so that readers of the Beachcomber will at least be able to have the information they deserve. I ask every voter in Long Beach to contact the city clerk and ask where are the voting materials and why were they sent out in some instances after the April Primary. (You can go on line and download the ballot at: https://www.lavote.net/locator)

Also, I ask that the city attorney investigate whether or the not the printer/mailer failed to meet the requirements of an expensive contract to produce voting materials in a timely manner and whether or not the city (and maybe the primary candidates) are due a refund.

City Attorney’s Impartial Analysis of Measure “M”

The City of Long Beach General Fund pays for general city services such as police, fire and paramedic response, street repair, parks, libraries and youth/senior programs. On March 7, 2018, the Long Beach City Council placed Measure “M” on the ballot to maintain General Fund revenue.

Long Beach City Charter, Sections 1407 and 1501 currently authorize the City Council or Board of Water Commissioners to transfer revenue from city utility funds to the General Fund if the revenue is not necessary to pay for a utility’s capital improvements, bond/debt service, operations and maintenance, personnel, reserves and other costs.

Under this authority, the city has, for many years, approved annual transfers of surplus water, sewer and gas utility revenue to the General Fund as part of the budget process. For FY 2016-2017, these transfers amounted to approximately $21,000,000 in General Fund revenue, which paid for general city services.

On July 9, 2015, a lawsuit was filed against the city alleging certain revenue transfers from the gas utility to the General Fund are “general taxes” requiring voter approval under Proposition 26. On Sept. 30, 2016, another lawsuit was filed against the city alleging certain revenue transfers from the water and sewer utilities to the General Fund are also “general taxes” requiring voter approval under Proposition 218. The city prevailed at the trial court in the gas utility revenue case, however, that ruling is being appealed. On Nov. 8, 2017, the city settled the water and sewer utility revenue case.

On March 7, 2018, the City Council voted to place Measure “M” on the ballot for the June 5, 2018 Municipal General Election. If approved by a majority of Long Beach voters, Measure “M” would amend Sections 1407 and 1501 of the Long Beach City Charter as follows:

Reauthorize and affirm the city’s practice of revenue transfers from the water, sewer and gas utilities to the General Fund, as approved by the City Council/Board of Water Commissioners, subject to a cap of twelve percent of each utility’s annual gross revenues, as shown by audited financial reports.

Clarify that all proceeds from utility revenue transfers to the General Fund shall be used to maintain local General Fund services.

Clarify that the City Council or Board of Water Commissioners, whichever is applicable, may approve water, sewer and gas rates in an amount sufficient to recover the costs of operating each utility, including Council/Board-approved utility revenue transfers to the General Fund, as outlined above.

Measure “M” requires simple majority approval of Long Beach voters to pass. If Measure “M” does not pass, utility revenue transfers to the General Fund and utility rates may be reduced. In that case, the City Council may be required, as part of the budgeting process, to consider eliminating or reducing general city services funded by these transfers.

A “Yes” vote will approve Measure “M”.

A “No” vote will not approve Measure “M”.

The above statement is an impartial analysis of Measure “M”. If you desire a copy of the measure, please call the Elections Official’s office at (562) 570-6101 and a copy will be mailed at no cost to you.

Charles Parkin, City Attorney