During its Sept. 24 meeting, the Signal Hill City Council announced its appointment of a new city manager to replace Charlie Honeycutt, who is retiring in November. It also updated the city’s commemorative-flag policy and deliberated legal and other issues with the commissioner-appointment process it had agreed to at its last meeting.
City manager
The council approved a city-manager employment-agreement for Hannah Shin-Heydorn, currently the deputy city manager. Current City Manager Charlie Honeycutt said the council had interviewed Shin-Heydorn on Aug. 13 and unanimously voted for her to replace Honeycutt as of Nov. 2, after he retires.
As part of her appointment, the council also approved a resolution amending the management-salary schedule in the city’s code, as required by CalPERS, since Shin-Heydorn’s base salary will be $11,434 less than Honeycutt’s for the 2019-2020 fiscal year.
Honeycutt said that the City considers succession planning as a way to preserve talented staff and institutional knowledge and had hired Shin-Heydorn as deputy city manager with that in mind.
“She’s a talented individual who manages the daily operations of the Administration Department, […] oversees human resources and provides valuable leadership on a variety of special projects,” Honeycutt said. “And understands the importance of getting to know community members as well as participating in regional organizations that work on addressing […] issues such as homelessness, public safety, housing and economic development.”
Honeycutt added that Shin-Heydorn is well respected by the city’s department directors, staff and other city managers in the region.
“I’m very comforted by the fact that as I just become a resident of Signal Hill, that we have somebody like Hannah who will take over the leadership of this organization and continue moving the city forward,” Honeycutt said.
Mayor Lori Woods added that Shin-Heydorn has over 20 years of experience in both private and public sectors, including with the Department of Defense, the University of Southern California, Northrup Grumman and the City of Lake Forest.
Both Councilmembers Edward Wilson and Councilmember Tina Hansen expressed support for Shin-Heydorn’s appointment. Hansen said she had been impressed by Shin-Heydorn’s initial interview for the deputy position via Skype because she was abroad.
“I’ve interviewed a lot of people,” Hansen said. “Her talent, her dedication, her passion just came across so strongly in that Skype interview. There wasn’t a moment’s hesitation with the council. […] We brought her in knowing that she would, and could, rise to this position.”
Shin-Heydorn introduced her husband, son, and daughter in attendance and expressed her thanks to the council.
“I am so appreciative of this opportunity and the trust you’ve placed in me to serve as the next city manager,” she said. “I’m so grateful to the amazing staff we have that I get to continue to work alongside them in furthering the council’s vision. I love this community– the engaged residents and businesses– and I look forward to many fruitful years.”
Hansen and Woods assured Shin-Heydorn’s family about her time.
“We’re going to make sure she takes vacations,” Hansen said.
Flag policy
Shin-Heydorn said that at its May 14 meeting, the council had directed staff to look into updating the city’s flag policy. During that meeting, the council had agreed to display a rainbow-colored flag at city hall to commemorate June as LGBT Pride Month, beginning with Harvey Milk Day on May 22.
The city has a flag-etiquette policy from 1998 that dictates flag display, Shin-Heydorn said.
“The city’s flagpoles are not intended to serve as a forum for free expression by the public and are to be used exclusively by the city where the city council may display a commemorative flag as a form of government expression,” she said.
Shin-Heydorn put forward staff’s recommendations for commemorative flags, including that a majority of the council needs to agree to fly such a flag and that the city would display it beneath Signal Hill’s flag on the same flagpole for a month at three locations– city hall, the library and police station.
The council agreed that it can choose to display flags for more or less than a month. Hansen also suggested that the council decide on most of the commemorative-flag displays for the year at one meeting in December or January.
Councilmember Keir Jones motioned to move staff’s recommendations and Vice Mayor Robert Copeland seconded.
However, Woods put forward a substitute motion to display commemorative flags only at city hall and not on the flagpole– sparing the expense of additional flags at the library and police station– along with information to educate viewers on its significance.
“If we are going to fly and recognize– which I think we should– any commemorative flags, […] they be in a separate location prominent to the face or the front of the entrance to city hall,” she said.
Since no other member seconded Woods’s motion, it failed and the first motion was put to vote. Four councilmembers approved it with Woods opposing.
Commissioner appointments
The council also revisited the commissioner-appointment process it had agreed to at its previous meeting on Sept. 10 (as reported in the Sept. 13 issue of the Signal Tribune).
That process includes a new application allowing candidates the choice of applying to all three commissions, separate interview and appointment dates and a selection process whereby council members put forth slates of candidates and agree according to which names appear the most.
City Attorney Dave Aleshire pointed out that the new selection process potentially contradicts the city’s charter.
“Under the charter, the mayor puts the names out and the terminology that’s used is ‘the appointment is by the mayor with the approval of the council,’” Aleshire said. “So [if] the mayor puts something out there, and the council does not agree with that, then the person is not selected.”
In the new process, if a candidate gets three votes from council members but not the mayor, and that person is appointed, it is consistent with the charter, Aleshire said.
To make it consistent, if the candidate is not named by the mayor, then the mayor has to make that person their appointee, he said. The mayor may also veto that appointment.
“The process of having these slates is okay, but a person cannot be put in position without the mayor ultimately agreeing with that selection,” he said. “We have a charter to work with and we have to fit within that.”
In answer to a question by Hansen, Aleshire clarified that there might be no appointments if the mayor doesn’t agree to any.
He also said that the mayor would have to vote against candidates, which the council had discussed not wanting to do at its previous meeting.
“It’s the mayor now that would be in that seat,” Aleshire said. “The mayor having this veto has that opportunity but would then have to be the bad guy in terms of not allowing somebody that has three votes to serve.”
Aleshire also suggested that since candidates can choose to apply to multiple commissions, the council should make commission appointments in ranked order, beginning with the Planning Commission.
“You should resolve that first and then you know who’s left for the other seats,” he said.
He suggested that the council decide on the Planning Commission first, then the Civil Service Commission because of the importance of its decisions, and finally the Parks and Recreation Commission.
“If you know that the order’s going to be that way, it’s […] more predictable for all the council people making their decisions,” he said.
A final point of clarification Aleshire raised was about candidates who didn’t show up for the interview.
Woods said she had just spoken with someone who hadn’t realized she had to appear the night of the interviews, saying she wasn’t notified.
Hansen said there could be extenuating circumstances or an emergency preventing a candidate from appearing but that shouldn’t disqualify them.
Wilson added that there are people who may have already made plans for the interview night.
The council favored being flexible and evaluating the reason for an absence and also interviewing people out of town by phone, as it has done in the past.
Woods added that since the council appoints on a subsequent date, that would allow for a secondary interview time to accommodate extenuating circumstances.
In answer to a question by Jones about which policy prevails– the council’s process or the charter– Aleshire clarified that the charter gives the mayor veto authority, but the council can decide about the mayor.
“If the mayor chooses to do something different, the council can censure the person,” he said. “The mayor can be replaced at any time. It’s never happened […] but it always could.”
Copeland said the council’s main goal should be not to confuse the public and he hopes that if the mayor wants to use a different process than the policy, that they explain it first.
Woods said that she simply hoped this council can come up with a protocol of best practices.
“Shame on us for not getting our act together,” she said about confusion after the previous appointment process in March.
Wilson said that the process is political and also that the council will be new the next time it makes commission appointments.
“We’re trying to set the rules for a new council, and I think that’s where the difficulty lies,” he said.
Copeland said the council is just trying to tell a new council what might work, not direct them.
“It’s when we change all the time that people get confused,” Wilson agreed.
Aleshire also agreed that clarifying a process is important for the future.
“This hasn’t really been spelled out previously,” he said. “The fact that you put it in writing and everybody has a common understanding and then you apply it several times you see how it works, and if it works out fine, you won’t have to change it, and if there are glitches, you can focus on what the glitch is and change it.”
Woods also affirmed the value of delineating a policy in advance.
“It’s good to work on these things– like the flag policy, like the appointment policy– when it’s not a hot topic where we’re under the gun to decide right now and pressure and emotions and passions are flying,” she said.
Water tax
John Hunter, a representative of consultants John L. Hunter and Associates, Inc., presented to the council on Measure W: The Safe Clean Water Program.
The measure, which was voted in on the November 2018 statewide ballot, has its roots in helping fund $20 billion to comply with a MS4 (municipal separate storm-sewer system) permit, Hunter said.
LA County had introduced the idea of a parcel tax to clean beaches in 2015, though it didn’t pass, Hunter said. Years of drought then led California to add Measure W to the 2018 ballot calling for a parcel tax to fund capturing and treating storm-water runoff. Nearly 70% of voters approved the measure.
Beginning in October, property owners will see a new fee on their property-tax bills of 2.5 cents per square foot of impermeable area, Hunter said.
“What that means is: the greater your roof is, the more concrete you have, the larger your driveways are, the higher your fees are going to be,” Hunter said. “So if you concreted your front yard, you’re going to get a higher fee than your neighbor that let it remain grass or pervious soil.”
An average single-family home can expect a fee of $65 to $90 per year, he said. Property owners can estimate their fee before they get the bill by visiting the website, safecleanwaterla.org/calculator.
Hunter said that the county used aerial photography and LIDAR (light detection and ranging) to determine the imperviousness of each parcel, but owners can appeal if they believe their assessment is off base.
“[LIDAR] is kind of like RADAR, but it uses very many frequencies of light and it’s really quite accurate,” he said. “But it’s not infallible.”
Schools and municipal properties are exempt from the tax, as are low-income seniors who own and reside at a property and file, Hunter said. Owners who already have a storm-water treatment system can also file for a partial exemption.
The county expects to generate between $265 and 285 million annually from the parcel tax, with half of the funds going to very large regional water-treatment projects, 40% toward municipal projects and 10% for county administration.
“Signal Hill can expect to get about $250,000 back as their municipal match,” he said.
The county expects to initiate the first round of regional projects in November but the transfer of municipal funds first has to be approved by the board of supervisors in February 2020 and may reach cities such as Signal Hill by May or June.
Hunter said the tax program will continue indefinitely and residents can find more information about it at safeclearnwater.org.
The next Signal Hill City Council meeting will take place Tuesday, Oct. 8 at 7pm in the council chamber at 2175 Cherry Ave.
1 comment
Comments are closed.