Bits and Pieces 30

Please make sure you are sitting as you read this.

Please visit Rancho Palos Verdes Patch at http://ranchopalosverdes.patch.com/ and read Mr. Don Reeves Letter to the Editor.

Again, please make sure you are sitting.

I agree with much of Mr. Reeves' letter! I'm waiting until you are provided smelling salts.

Are you feeling better? Good!

Mr. Reeves' letter is informational, factual, and reminds every reader that any new sanitation sewer fee approved in our city is NOT related to the existing Storm Drain Users Fee (Some will call it a tax and they may be right on.)

Mr. Reeves also reminds folks that there have been talks in the past, about a sewer fee because the lines within our city are owned by our city, and not necessarily maintained 'for free' by Los Angeles Sanitation District 5, which our city is one of many cities within that numbered entity.

I know you won't faint when I admit I appreciate and agree muchly with Tom Long's response to Mr. Reeves' letter.

Tom is also factual and poses reasonable questions and things to consider.

SO LET'S CONSIDER!!!

How many of you remember Measure C? You know, it's the ballot measure so many of us voted on, less than one month ago.

Did you hear and read all the fall-der-all from folks screaming there was a rush on with the measure and that they were not provided enough time and information to make a reasonable and responsible determination as to how they would vote?

I know that was all propaganda and none of it was true, if you were really interested and concerned about our city becoming a charter city.

You also should remember that all five Council members, all seven Planning Commission members, a majority of the Finance Committee (I don't remember if it was unanimous), and others in our city's government or volunteer groups all strongly supported passage of that measure.

OUCH! I needn't remind you of the outcome and I literally stood it the inkavote machine, held my nose with fingers on my right hand and punched the "YES" dot on my ballot. Measure C's loss didn't bother me at all, HOWEVER, we stand now with another prospect of a ballot measure that MIGHT be rushed and may be ill-timed and become a campaign issue it should not become.

Tom's reply to Don's letter stated he thinks a new sanitary sewer fee/tax, if approved by voters might be "likely to average around $25.00" according to Tom's reply.

Now let's jog your memory to just a few weeks ago. Don offered information about a proposed increase of fees charged to residential property owners by District 5. Property owners received a long piece of information about the proposal with the renewal of fees set at about $2.00 per year for the next three-year contract.

Currently property owners pay about $130.00 per year and the District proposes to increase the fees to about $136.00 per year in the third year.

I not going to opine on this, in this post.

What I will strongly opine on is the real necessity to bring an considered city fee to all of us, should have been done at the same time or just before the District's proposal was sent out.

I got basically nowhere with repeated inquiries about what has been talked about by some representatives in our city's government and staff, even when talking to individuals within city government or those who are in volunteer positions.

Tom's reply acknowledges that there has been talk I knew was going on, so why hasn't it been openly dealt with yet?

Now we have a real conundrum, I believe.

We have an upcoming election in November that will determine who sits in three of the five seats on our Council.

I do not want candidates using any proposed fee/tax as an issue because there are so many important issues those who win seats will have to deal with.

I do not feel having a Special Election on the matter could possibly be held before November's election because it would truly be a rush to first discuss whether the matter needs more study, have the most open and honest discussion on the issue, and then vote on the matter.

Remember, Special Elections are costly and if you don't believe me, talk to Dr. Brophy and his offering to have Marymount pay the $72,000 Measure P's vote cost.

Would any new fee have to include a one-time added cost for the Special Election or inclusion within a General Election?

Which Council should vote to place the issue onto a ballot? I'm sure Don and others want to see who the three new members are before any vote to place a new fee or tax occurs.

If candidates are given the opportunity to use any new fee or tax as an issue, might that one issue become too prominent in their campaigns? I sure hope not.

What would folks think if this current Council places the measure on a ballot of either a Special or General election, AFTER the first Tuesday in November?

Any new fee or tax to cover maintenance or other things related to sanitary sewer systems within our city requires a vote of the electorate. So we get the ultimate decision whether we apply a new fee/tax our ourselves, or not. That, at least, is a good thing.

What I also do not want to see is anything like we all had to go through with both Measure P, The Marymount Plan and Measure C, the Charter City debate.

We all tore our city up and none of it demonstrated how great our residents really are. We can't afford to do anything like that again and if we do it a third time, others will view us very negatively, I bet.

We must have a lengthy, open, honest, and truthful discussion and debate about this issue. We must not feel rushed. We must not consider District 5 or our city's sewer system as a Special Interest. We must be well educated about both the proposal to increase fees by District 5 AND everything regarding any proposition to create a new fee/tax at a time our city continues to have 'money in the bank' while too many homeowners are either unemployed, underemployed, or have their homes 'under water'.

The city might be in good shape, revenue-wise, but can we and should we say the majority of our residents are? I don't know the answer to that one.

I would like to see the issues agendized at the next City Council meeting. I don't know where this issue stands, but I think our residents deserve to hear from our Council members what their opinions are on this matter and whether they will have a staff report created or an update of one, if it has already been started. I can't find any information about it on the city's Web site.

I would be just as happy to hear that the current Council decides to open up the issues and vote to have it considered AFTER this November's election. That way we won't have to have candidates use it as a campaign issue, and we will have plenty of time to consider it, hopefully in a better economic situation for a larger number of residents.

I didn't get a speaking part from an audition I went to. I'll keep trying and working the technical side of things.

To remind folk about some specific prices and costs:

A standard barrel of crude oil contains 42 gallons.

The last time I bought gas, I paid $4.07.99 a gallon.

If a barrel of oil sells for $104.00 as it head towards refining, each gallon in the barrel sold for $2.4761. I know the costs of crude are artificially inflated and there are taxes galore on each gallon sold at the pump. But, COME ON!