The Brief

An answer to Long Beach’s ongoing budget woes may be buried under dust in Sacramento.

The Long Beach City Council is in a mad dash to bring the state to the negotiating table over a decades-old contract that establishes the revenue split from the Wilmington Oil Field in and around the coastline, saying the current agreement has been a cash gusher for the state.

City officials say time is of the essence, as the legislative cycle ends next week and any items not brought forward could be tabled until at least January.

It’s an item that would restructure how much the city receives for its guardianship over what’s known as its tidelands area, a 24-square-mile swath of ocean and coastline from the Orange County line through downtown Long Beach to the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The field goes about as far north as Ocean Boulevard, almost reaching the breakwater to the south, and encompasses some of Long Beach’s most precious assets: the beaches, marinas, and Convention Center.

Since 1991, the city has received 8.5% of revenues earned through oil and dry gas production in the tidelands area, pulling from the Long Beach section of the Wilmington Oil Field. Another 49% goes to the oil operator while the state takes 42.5%.

But it’s a deal that no longer makes sense, according to Long Beach Councilmember Kristina Duggan, who said Friday a reasonable city share rests between 20% and 30% of the revenue.

The city is under mounting pressure to transition its economy away from a reliance on local oil production, which is set for a dramatic decline — $300 million over the next 10 years, according to City Auditor Laura Doud. Meanwhile, the city has $1 billion in outstanding coastal projects, from a deteriorating Naples Island seawall to costly upgrades at the Convention Center.

Facing the rising cost of upkeep along the coastline, the city is expected to spend more than it earns to oversee the tidelands for the first time in 2026. Officials project future deficits through 2035 will range between $6.2 million and $10 million.

As a result, city leaders may have to divert money from other core programs and services.

“What are we going to take away? Are we going to take away our libraries? Are we going to take away our staffing at parks? Where are we going to get the money when we are using funds from the general fund to take care of every district?” Duggan said.

Meanwhile, the state expects to reap $271 million from the tidelands through 2035, according to Duggan’s office.

Oil in Long Beach has a long, intricate history, pieced together through multi-party contracts and court hearings over who is most deserving of the gushing revenues and by how much.

Oil was discovered in 1932 and was estimated to total 9.5 billion gallons' worth. In the years prior to 1955, Long Beach was awash in cash, keeping most of the oil revenue for its general fund.

Citing a trust arrangement set in 1911, the California Supreme Court in 1955 named the state as the main beneficiary, since the oil was extracted from state land beneath the water. The state declared most of the money generated from oil production as surplus and began redirecting it to Sacramento, based on the conditions when the coast had fewer needs and oil production was much higher.

Under the expectation that oil would either soon dry up or be phased out, the city agreed to a funding formula in 1964 that fixed its revenue at $1 million a year. The change in 1991 bumped the city’s yield to its current rate, which now brings in around $50 million annually. The city receives tax revenue from 2,762 active and idle oil wells that are managed by 14 oil operators.

But the current formula is out of step with reality, Duggan said, adding that the state has taken $5.75 billion from Long Beach under this formula as “surplus.”

“Our increase in responsibilities and costs is escalating far, far greater than what we can keep up with,” she said.

It’s the “No. 1 priority this next year” in state lobbying, said Mayor Rex Richardson on Tuesday. The mayor has for years lobbied the state to allow Long Beach to divert interest from a fund meant to cover the costs of decommissioning defunct oil wells, of which the city has invested millions.

“We’re going to go back to Sacramento and put options on the table,” Richardson said. “But the reality is … doing nothing is not an option for us.”

In a joint call with the governor’s office last week, Richardson reiterated his request for diverting interest from the oil decommissioning fund, while Duggan spoke on renegotiating the funding formula.

While Newsom’s office seemed open to both ideas, according to Duggan, each needed to be championed by Long Beach’s state representatives — state Sen. Lena Gonzalez and Assemblyman Josh Lowenthal.

“We need them to carry this,” Duggan said. “And we have two weeks to get some sort of traction with legislation. That’s the only way to make it happen.”

In a statement Friday, a spokesperson from Lowenthal’s office said the assemblyman looks forward to “discussing potential ideas with the city of Long Beach and the Long Beach legislative delegation.”

“With California now facing a major budget shortfall, we’ve had to make tough choices to protect vital services while keeping the budget balanced,” the statement read. “Any sudden changes to that balance could have real consequences here at home. While the city has and continues to be a good steward of the state’s tidelands — any discussions surrounding the fund’s future must be well informed, conducted responsibly, and be in the best interests of the entire state of California and the residents of the city of Long Beach in order to uphold the public trust.”

Companies that create and manufacture personal delivery devices, those cute bots you see on public sidewalks, have been working on growth plans for years.

Cities, on whose public sidewalks the delivery bots travel, are only now catching up to regulating them and charging the companies fees.

That's what's happening in Glendale, where, City Councilman Dan Brotman says, “[The delivery bots] just appeared out of nowhere. The company that operates [them] never reached out and talked to us."

He and other council members, he said, want to know if the delivery devices make it harder for Glendale residents using wheelchairs to use public sidewalks.

“I also am curious who is getting the financial benefit from these,” he said.

Glendale’s City Council asked city staff last month to draft two proposals, one with regulations and fees and the other pausing the operation of delivery bots while the council studies their impact. Brotman said staff may deliver those proposals to him and his colleagues in the months to come.

The two largest cities in LA County, at two different stages

The City of Los Angeles approved rules for personal delivery devices a few years ago, including flat permit fees. The City Council has since asked staff in the Department of Transportation to revaluate those rules and make suggestions.

One idea being considered — charging companies for every bot trip instead of the flat fee.

A delivery robot sits next to the bike path by the beach

(

Courtesy Coco

)

L.A. City Councilwoman Eunisses Hernandez successfully introduced the motion last year to have the regulations revisited. 

“[The companies are] starting to put movie ads or show ads, and if they're generating revenue off that, we want to know what that looks like but also be able to have a fee for them,” Hernandez said.

That report should be presented to the City Council later this year, she said. 

She’s also keen to hear from the public about their views on delivery bots. 

Companies that make the devices argue they’re providing an essential delivery service to residents while cutting down on the number of vehicles on the road making the deliveries.

“We currently pay fees in Los Angeles, Chicago and West Hollywood as part of their permit programs and are open to similar models in other cities,” said Vignesh Ram, vice president of policy at Serve Robotics, by email.

Starship Technologies' delivery robot exits the elevator in the company's office.

(

Meg Kelly

/

NPR

)

The company is now operating in Long Beach; Ram says it notified the city before beginning to operate there.

A City of Long Beach spokesperson told LAist its business licensing, planning and public works teams are currently working on recommendations for regulations. Those should be presented to the City Council early this summer.

The story first appeared on The LA Local.

When Hermila Melero trains future therapists at Cal State LA, she emphasizes something she learned over nearly two decades working on the Eastside: It matters where you’re from. 

“When you know the difference between East LA and Boyle Heights … they appreciate that on a really fundamental level,” Melero, director of field education at CSULA’s School of Social Work, said. “You feel a sense of safety and being seen when the person reflects what you look like, has a foundational understanding of where you come from.” 

Now, a $48 million grant to California State University, Los Angeles, will open new opportunities for students to serve the communities they come from. The funding will expand the university’s social work and counseling programs, training 1,000 new students to support youth mental health in Eastside communities and other underserved areas of Los Angeles.

What will the funding do?

The five-year investment by the Ballmer Group — the largest grant in the university’s history — will significantly grow Cal State LA’s Master of Social Work program. 

Its one-year MSW program will double in size, the two‑year program will increase by 50%, and the School-Based Family Counseling program will also double. The bulk of the funding will support scholarships, new faculty and the expansion of clinical placements.

Cal State LA already partners with organizations across the Eastside, including El Centro De Ayuda, AltaMed, Survivor Justice Center and schools across LAUSD. The new funding will allow more students to work directly with these groups, serving families who often lack access to care. 

“This speaks to the amazing work our social work and counseling programs are doing within our schools and with LA’s agencies serving youth and families,” said CSULA President Berenecea Johnson Eanes in a statement to Boyle Heights Beat. “With more clinical placements and greater numbers of master’s alumni, we will make real strides in meeting a critical shortage of qualified social workers and counselors.”

In addition to CSULA, CSU Dominguez Hills received $29 million to expand mental health resources in South LA and UCLA will use part of its $33 million grant to develop a minor in youth behavioral health. The three universities have received a total of $110 million. 

When Hermila Melero trains future therapists at Cal State LA, she emphasizes something she learned over nearly two decades working on the Eastside: It matters where you’re from.

(

Courtesy CSULA

)

Why representation matters

For Melero, who was born and raised in East LA, the expansion is personal. 

Melero spent 17 years of her professional career as a social worker in her own community and the surrounding areas. She witnessed firsthand how much her patients appreciated it when she spoke to them in Spanish or told them where she grew up. 

“You don’t have to explain yourself, you don’t have to explain what it’s like, you know, to grow up here,” she said. 

Now as director of field education, she helps place students in organizations, clinics and schools across the region, many of them serving the neighborhood they call home. 

Barriers to access

The need for more mental health workers comes at a time when many Eastside families are facing more barriers to care.

Stigma around mental health combined with fear tied to immigration raids have discouraged some people from seeking services, Melero said.

At the same time, financial challenges are making it harder for students to enter the profession. 

In January, the U.S. Department of Education updated its definition of a “professional degree” and excluded social work, which will affect graduate students’ eligibility for federal student loans, creating a significant financial barrier, according to the Council on Social Work Education.

Students hope to give back

For students like Silvia Perez, 41, financial assistance would be a great help.

The Cal State LA undergraduate student is pursuing her master’s degree after she graduates in May, all while raising two teenagers and a 23-year-old. Perez has been paying for her education by selling shoes and perfume outside of her home in East LA. 

Her decision to pursue a career in social work came after seeing her sister navigate the Department of Children and Family Services system with her children and witnessing how young people in her community struggled with substance abuse and homelessness. 

After graduating, Perez hopes to work in East LA to help the people she encounters every day. She believes that level of understanding can create trust with an already vulnerable population.

“I would like to help the people in my community first…I live the daily life that everyone else in my community faces,” she said.

For more information on CSULA’s MSW programs, click here.

Editor’s Note: The LA Local also receives support from the Ballmer Group.

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

California scored a legal victory Monday that for now, undermines the Trump administration’s efforts to drastically cut funding for homeless housing.

Changes that would have diverted huge chunks of federal funds away from permanent housing and funneled them instead into temporary shelters and sober living programs will remain suspended after the Trump administration dropped its appeal of an earlier court loss. While the broader case is still being litigated, the new development could provide some reassurance to California counties waiting for the federal funds.

“We continue to fight for Californians and the rule of law, and we continue to win,” Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a news release. “People experiencing housing insecurity or homelessness need the federal government’s continued support — not a rollback of assistance.”

In November, the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development attempted to change the way it doles out money for homeless services via its Continuum of Care program. It decreed that jurisdictions applying for a piece of about $4 billion in federal homelessness funds can’t spend more than 30% of that money on permanent housing — a move that would result in a significant cut to the type of long-term housing that can resolve someone’s homelessness.

Last year, California communities spent about 90% of their federal Continuum of Care funds on permanent housing.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration quickly joined 19 other states and the District of Columbia in suing to stop the Trump administration’s changes. In December, a federal judge in Rhode Island temporarily blocked the changes and ordered HUD to process funding applications under the original rules. The Trump administration appealed that ruling, leaving local governments and homeless service providers unsure of what they would be awarded funding for, and when.

The federal government on Monday dropped its appeal. While the rest of the lawsuit will move forward, and could take months to resolve, counties should be able to access permanent housing funds in the meantime.

Instead of prioritizing permanent housing, as has been the rule in the past, the Trump administration wants to focus more on shelters that get people off the streets quickly and temporarily, and on programs that require residents to be sober. HUD also attempted to ban the use of federal homelessness funds for diversity and inclusion efforts, support of transgender clients, and use of “harm reduction” strategies that seek to reduce overdose deaths by helping people in active addiction use drugs more safely.

A HUD spokesperson said the agency stood by its funding reforms.

“HUD remains committed to reforming the failed ‘Housing First’ approach and restoring the Continuum of Care program to its core objectives; reducing homelessness and promoting self-sufficiency for all vulnerable Americans, ensuring taxpayer dollars are directed towards those goals,” a spokesperson said in a statement.

HUD experienced another legal setback last month when a federal judge in Rhode Island shot down the agency’s attempt to upend another, smaller, source of federal homelessness funding. At issue in that case was a program called the Continuum of Care Builds grant, which funds the construction of new homeless housing. HUD last year made grantees reapply under a very different set of criteria, which seemed to disqualify organizations that support trans clients, use “harm reduction” to prevent drug overdose deaths or operate in a “sanctuary city.”

About $75 million in federal funds had been frozen as that case moved forward.

In March, the court found HUD violated the law through its “slapdash imposition of political whims.”

“This ruling is a victory for people across this nation who have overcome homelessness and stabilized in HUD’s permanent housing programs,” Ann Oliva, chief executive of the National Alliance to End Homelessness, which filed the lawsuit, wrote in a statement. “Today’s news reinforces a fundamental truth: that the work to end homelessness is not partisan, and never should be interfered with for political means.”

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.