Except for one problem, she hasn't actually resigned her at-large seat yet. Kim, it turns out, has not sent in her letter of resignation, and therefore still technically occupies that seat. Kim was in the enviable position of knowing that no matter how last week's election turned out, she would still have a place on the Board of Education. Her letter will have been received and the Board can "take action" by the time the April 9 meeting rolls around, which is when we can all go back with even more signatures than we did this time. And look at it this way, if we can get the signatures of 1.5% of all the registered voters in the PUSD, then they will have to give us our shot at the vote. No matter what they want to do.
The new Board of Education isn't seated until May 6, by the way. So this is all still in the hands of the lame duck Board.
The new Board of Education isn't seated until May 6, by the way. So this is all still in the hands of the lame duck Board.
Since I was busy watching the City Council meeting, I am relying this morning on notes sent to me by someone who was actually there. And our correspondent has written some good stuff. Check out this little moment of Zen:
After the break, most folks left and Pappalardo and Gundry started in on their (important?) yet very dull presentations. During Gundry's I noticed that Miramontes snuck out, followed by Honowitz who left at 10:30 and then Selinski left at 10:35pm. Phelps was eating a granola/candy bar, Renatta looked like she was taking a quick snooze and Kenne was knitting while secretary Orona chomped madly on the same piece of gum she had at the start of the meeting.
Kind of gives you that "you were there" feeling, doesn't it? And perhaps that "sure glad it wasn't me" sensation as well. The fight for Sierra Madre's Board of Education vote goes on. There is no way we're going to back off on this one.
As far as the City Council meeting goes, there was the conversation about smoking and the joys of "multi-unit housing" life, and then a whole lot of pain about the problems with Sierra Madre's water situation. And I think we really do need to commend Chris Koerber for finally bringing the real elephant out into the open in regards to water. What is actually going on there is a far bigger mess than the City seems willing to share.
It turns out that due to bad decisions made by our city government in both 1998 and 2003, we are now looking at $16.8 million dollars in total Water Department debt. This includes a $3.5 million dollar water bond from 1998, and a far larger $6.75 million dollar water bond cut in 2003. One we are currently only paying the interest on. Throw in the total debt service for the life of these two bonds, plus the $1.5 million we owe for an as yet unpaid loan from the San Gabriel Valley Metropolitan Water District, and you are talking about a huge amount of money for a little town of less than 11,000 people.
Compare this with the chirpy nonsense the City put out for the March 9th Water Subcommittee meeting:
Thank you for your interest in participating in our Water Sub-Committee study group!
The first study session on Saturday, March 9, 2013 at 10:00 am in the Sierra Madre Room at the Community Recreation Center, 611 E. Sierra Madre, will be a discussion of our water rates, and the upcoming water rate study that the City Council will be commissioning. Attached, please find the Report presented to the City Council on February 12, 2013. We are also including this year’s State of the Infrastructure report for your perusal; which has a large section devoted to water, as well as streets sewers and public facilities.
For this meeting, we will focus on the following question (sic): How do we structure water rates so that we:
Keep our water utility financially viable,
Promote conservation so that we minimize or delay our need for an alternate water supply,
Give a higher priority to health and hygiene needs of our citizens vs. discretionary uses (long hot showers, lush landscaping),
Be sensitive to those that are least able to pay, and
Build reserves to replace and repair aging infrastructure.
Once again, thank you for your interest in our City’s water supply. We look forward to the discussion on Saturday.
A long hot shower indeed.
A long hot shower indeed.
If you were to go through the entire document prepared for last Friday's Water Subcommittee meeting, there is almost nothing about the huge fiscal problems caused by the massive amounts of bond debt the water department faces. The consequences of that being delayed repairs and maintenance because nearly all of the money is being pumped into debt service and bond covenants. The one problem that by far overshadows everything else had been pretty much airbrushed from the discussion. Just like it was two years ago, which is the last time water rates were raised. Except for this one brief mention all the way back on page 52:
Bonds: Bonds can be issued for infrastructure improvements. There are costs associated with issuing bonds, and a revenue source must be identified to repay the bonds. However, the issuance of bonds can be accomplished without a public vote.
Stop them before they kill again.
At one point during last night's discussion on our water debacle Mayor "Mo' Money" Moran gave a rather long dissertation on this matter. And the gist of what he had to say was about the aged condition of our water infrastructure, especially pipes. His inference being that we had delayed maintenance for too long, and now we have to bite the bullet and pay more for water so that we can upgrade "the leakers." This is only marginally true. The major reason why water rates are going to be raised by this City Council is because of $16.8 million dollars in water bond and other debt. The pipes will get fixed if there is anything left over.
One more observation about this one. Why did the City Council back in 2003 add $6.75 million in water bond debt to the books? The Downtown Specific Plan. In order to build the kind of massive development they and their cronies wanted for downtown, they needed to build in some new water infrastructure to service all of that new development. After the DSP was killed by the residents of this town, that debt remained. Which just goes to show the danger of putting so much power over bonds into the hands of fools.
The CARE folks were in the house last night, and they were pushing hard for restricting smoking in multi-unit housing. The problems associated with second hand smoke being the focus of their concern.
I personally hate cigarettes. I strongly supported getting smokers out of the downtown public areas a couple of years back, and my feelings haven't changed all that much. But what we are seeing with the possibility of an ordinance preventing smoking in apartment buildings and condos does raise some interesting problems. Mostly to do with law enforcement. How exactly do you go into peoples' homes and actually stop them from engaging in activity that is otherwise legal?
The fear is this would become a whole new level of ticketing responsibility placed upon the Sierra Madre Police Department. Do we really want to put more of this kind of additional burden on our Police Department? Don't they have enough tickets to give out as it is? And given the current crime wave sweeping the City, do we really need to take them away from those likely more important efforts?
There is also the interesting scenario of apartment residents turning in other apartment residents. Imagine the joy in that. Plus where do smokers go if they can't smoke in their homes? And will that be any better?
My gut feeling is this is going to eventually pass in some form or other. Good luck to us all.
http://sierramadretattler.blogspot.com