I Read It. I Saved It.

I found and saved the DRAFT Rules of Procedure and Code of Conduct (partial in the document, I suspect) that Mayor Misetich and Council member Brooks worked on as Sub-committee members of the Council.

Apparently, for the last 39 years or so, our former Mayors and Council members did not know anything about Rules of Procedures and Codes of Conduct, I write sarcastically.

Of course you and I know they did, but that didn't stop two elected members and the City Manager-led staff to create a new DRAFT set of items, just like trying to reinvent the wheel, I feel.

In the larger document, a mention of "Spirited Debate" among residents of our city appeared to be something negative to those who wrote the documents.

Our city needs and must have spirited debates to best offer our residents and businesses the greatest freedom to make decisions that affect so many people.

There are several areas I have some trouble with and what I have been hearing and reading lately, I'm not the only one who has some real questions for at least three individuals.

"Values-based ethics policy" Whose values must folks conform to?

"Pledge" This is a thorny issue because why must talented, intelligent, creative, helpful and great volunteers sign or conform to a pledge when they ALL probably have the best interests of our residents and businesses in mind from the get-go?

It also might be a violation of what is left of our First Amendment right of free speech and assembly.

There is one procedure involving the taking of votes that I have an issue with.

In the DRAFT Rules of Procedure, if a vote is taken and someone remains silent, that silence might constitute an affirmative vote.

I think this is very bad because it allows the silent one to 'skate' or 'skirt' the issue being voted on.

The best way to conduct a legal vote is to require the voter to say 'Yea', or something like that, "Nay", or something like that, or "Abstain" or "I Abstain".

We are currently in "Sunshine Week" where openness, honesty, and clear representation is called for, not 'back room politics' or something like that.

The vote on the DRAFT was originally scheduled for "March 14" NOT a regularly scheduled meeting of our C.C. and NOT being held at either City Hall, Hesse Park, or P.V. I.C., but rather at an non televised meeting area at the Officers College of the Salvation Army.

Thankfully, some folks finally were made to realize that it would look quite bad if the Rules and the Code was passed with fewer than five C.C. members at a non-regular location and not televised.

But wait! There's more.

Folks from the far right are joining with middle of the roaders and folks like me on the far left to let everyone know that something is quite amiss by this whole thing.

While I have no facts to back up the following, since this is my blog, I get to include conjecture, guess, and opinions, not necessarily based on facts, BUT based on what I have seen, heard, read, or know from history.

My conjecture is this: I think the "Sub-committee" which included Mayor Misetich and Council member Brooks had most of their work done by Council member Brooks. Our Mayor travels quite a bit and he has been out of the country and traveling around inside our country, which is his right and his professional responsibility.

I think Council member Brooks, after the 'One Hour Rule' was rescinded may have taken more than full advantage of meeting with staff members, including spending lots of time with our City Manager.

I feel we should demand from the Sub-committee members a full explanation as to how, when and why these DRAFT documents were created and who, besides Sub-committee members provided input into the creation of the documents.

WE elected our C.C. members to represent us with opinions, oversight, guidance, advice and consent and when it now appears that much of their authority and the rights and authority of Commissions and Committees and especially our Planning Commission might be curtailed in deference to work by one city employee, there must be some real examination done.

It does appear in writing that, while there are four options that may allow C.C. members to mandate the placement of issues on their own agenda, most of what is conveyed is that the City Manager, now and forever, might have the authority to dictate, completely what the C.C. sees and does and also what the Planning Commission sees and does.

The Planning Commission is also a body that can make legal decisions and they must also be provided with certain authorities and rights also provided now to the C.C.

It is also my opinion that Ms. Brooks stuck her foot into too much of a power grab for the City Manager, for reasons I still don't know...but I can ponder about.

As for "values", I feel Ms. Brooks and our City Manager have not used their very best to represent our city, during this process and many folks think that the 'values' offered and demonstrated by those two individuals are not 'values' they share.

Bits And Pieces 55

I've been doing other things and haven't been watching was has been going on lately.

First though, if you visit our very own Terrace Cinemas and buy a large drink, guess what they say should happen if you say to the counter person, 'I like walking the dog'?

You get a FREE hot dog during March. I didn't take advantage of the free candy provided in February, but I just might head to our great multiplex when "Hunger Games" comes out because Terri, as one of the Library Aides at Miraleste told me, it is a very hot book for Intermediate School readers.

We're still waiting for something coming out about Ponte Vista. I do know that iStar Financial, the backers of the project posted a fourth quarter 2011 loss of $35 Million and a total loss for 2011 of $62 Million. Oh well, their troubles continue.

Is it now time for me to say, "I told you so"?

What is now growing more apparent by the day is that folks on all sides of the political spectrum in R.P.V. are up in arms about this "Code of Conduct" and at least one C.C. member's attempt to make fundamental changes in the way our Council members, Planning Commission members and other residents who volunteer their services to all us on commissions, committees and other groups, operate.

There is talk swirling around that this one particular C.C. member may be cahoots with our City Manager to rest far too much power for the City Manager position and do away with many of the checks and balances we have seen in our city, for decades.

Imagine having to tell our City Manager where you are going and what you intend to do if you wish to address other city councils, other cities commissions and staff members.

Consider that what you say, as a volunteer in our city, might get you 'fired' because it may not be appropriate in the opinion of one person.

Imagine having to sign what can only be described as a 'loyalty pledge' if you plan on serving our city as a trained and highly qualified volunteer.

Imagine still, that all of the rumblings have been done in the back room or at the side or our City Manager, by one C.C. member and not via a majority vote of our Council.

Think about our elected representatives NOT being able to vote to place something on THEIR meeting agenda.

Consider that so many of our volunteer Council, Commission and Committee members are very qualified and we know that really do have the best interests of our residents in mind, except probably for one C.C. member.

What has been going on has gotten the ire of liberals, moderates, moderate conservatives and yes, ever folks on the far right side of politics. Many of these folks voted for the one C.C. member now seemingly wishing to put their agenda into play, by going behind the rules and trying to get theirs enacted.

Okay, it's "Our Ms. Brooks" that is the one so many folks are bothered by.

I have been out of the loop all year and I haven't paid too much attention to any individual C.C. member. So don't blame me for instigating anything. I just happen to one of the residents other 'little birdies' talk to.

What is really surprising is who is up in arms and how different all of these folks are. It's certainly not the far lefties like me who are the only ones questioning Ms. Brooks' tactics and goals.

Oh well, again. I had many guesses throughout the campaign that things would be like this and I wasn't too far off.

I think Ms. Brooks wishes she was elected Mayor on the night she was sworn in and she might even trying to be the next Mayor, even though Mayor Pro Tem Brian Campbell should be.

In private and now on this blog I will use the term for Ms. Brooks that I have held back on.

"Mom". I have felt and continue to feel Ms. Brooks believes that since she served on a previous Council and that she believes she knows what is best for all of us, we should all listen to her as if she is our mother, including the four other members of the C.C. and all the Planning Commissioners.

What about this 'values' thing 'Mom' seems to be trying to get enacted in our city? I guess they are only her values, whether you agree with them or not.

And another thing, remember when so many ill informed residents wanted to compare our city to the city of Bell, especially when the Charter City thing was about? If Ms. Brooks and our City Manager are really working together so that C.C. and P.C. members have no right to set some of their own agenda items, how is that any different than when the C.C. of Bell gave all their rights away to their city's manager?

It is amazing to hear some on the other side of politics than I am now wondering if our city might become more like the old Bell, because of one or two people working in dark, back rooms to make changes not too many folks want.

Also, why are 'they' trying to reinvent the wheel?

Tonight and tomorrow night is yet two more meetings about visions and goals this C.C. wants to look at. Haven't they had enough time already to get their groove together.

I hope Mayor Misetich, Mayor Pro Tem Campbell and Coucilmembers Duhovic and Knight understand that important work needs to get done and taking all this time to deal with what Council member Brooks is trying to do is wrong for our residents, all of our residents, no matter what side of politics they are on.

I also hope that Council member Brooks sees 'the writing on the wall' and that she 'gets with the program' and joins the other C.C. members in working together to better our city and not try to demand her values system onto others.

The members of the C.C., all the Planning Commission members, members of the Finance Committee and folks volunteering on the other commissions and committees are ALL more qualified than is seen in most other cities in the South Bay and Southern California. They are all volunteers who provide benefits, oversight, and intelligent opinions and should be respected.

I don't really know how much Ms. Brooks really respects those who don't necessarily agree with everything she says or wants. Time will tell.

I'm still hoping that more residents write to the authorities dealing with The Clearwater Program and let them know that it is best to extend the comment period or better yet, hold it off until we all know what is going to happen with the repair of Paseo Del Mar.

The Six Alternatives In A Large Nutshell

The Clearwater Program involves dealing with an entire combined Los Angeles County Sanitation District.

One very large portion of The Clearwater Program is a project to provide a new Joint Outfall System (JOS) from a 'hub' located in Carson, California and pipes and diffusers off the shore of the mainland of California, near Royal Palms, in San Pedro.

This project has six 'Alternatives' for the placement or no placement of a new JOS.

Alternative 1 consists of digging a large and deep hole in the ground near the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) in Carson for a Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) being inserted for the purposed of removing dirt, debris and other matter and then having what would be called the 'working shaft'. This shaft would be where the vast majority of product would come out of the ground for five of the six alternative and the movement of dirt and other matter would be accomplished by small rail cars on tracks deep underground and a conveyor to the surface.

The working shaft would be where the majority of workers would enter and exit.

The JOS or tunnel would be bored to a point offshore of an area east of Angel's Gate with a 'riser' being placed to provide access to new piping structures close to the shelf of San Pedro Canyon, off the coast.

There would be an 'exit' shaft sunk near the old LAXT site for removal of the TBM and to provide permanent access to the new JOS.

Two 'access' shafts would be required during the construction processes. One at the old Southwest Marine site and one at the TRAPAC area.

This Alternative is the most expensive in terms of dollars at a currently estimated cost of about 1.36 Billion Dollars. It would probably require one of the longest construction times.

Alternative 2 is similar to Alternative 1 except the Riser site and new tunneling would be done heading out to the west of Angel's Gate and the pipes and diffusers would be closer to the mainland that would be seen with Alternative 1.

This looks to be the second most costly, in terms of dollars and may also have one of the longest construction times.

Alternative 3 has, with the other four physical alternatives, its working shaft in a facility near the JWPCP site but the tunneling would be done basically along Figueroa Street, under Machado Lake and all the way under Gaffey Street to what is now the parking lot at the intersection of Gaffey Street and Paseo Del Mar.

That intersection would see the exit shaft's placement. With exit shafts placed on the mainland, those shafts are also considered to be permanent to provide access to the tunnel.

For this alternative and Alternative 4, there would not be any access shafts required and there would be just the working shaft and exit shaft required.

Alternative 4 is also and more importantly known as the 'recommended project' or in some other form to denote that this alternative is the favored one and the preferred project included in the Executive Summary of The Clearwater Program.

Currently estimated to have a dollar cost of approximately $550 Million Dollars, it is also estimated it would take the least amount of time to construct and has been considered to be the most 'environmentally' sound of all of the alternatives.

Beginning with the working shaft, the tunnel would 'snake' around to under the intersection of Anaheim Street and Gaffey Street then proceed under Gaffey Street to under the intersection of Gaffey Street and Capitol Drive. The tunnel would turn under the intersection of Capitol Drive and Western Avenue and proceed south until it begins to snake again, somewhat under Dodson Avenue until it meets the Sanitation Districts' property below the cliff near Royal Palms Beach.

The exit shaft would be sunk below the cliff, where permanent access to the tunnel would be created.

Alternative 5 is also known as the No Project alternative. This is a required Alternative to be studied and documentation be produced for.

This alternative deals with what if nothing is built. The Clearwater Program might still have quite a bit of development without having a new JOS or tunnel constructed, perhaps. This alternative deals with that and also if the entire program is cancelled.

Alternative 6 is also known as the No Federal Action alternative. For Alternatives 1-4 permits would be required from the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers to build any new JOS. This alternatives considers that the Sanitation Districts go ahead with The Clearwater Program and the placement of a new JOS but without any permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

It is my opinion that a new JOS requires Corp of Engineers' permits and cooperation, and I doubt that The Clearwater Program would go forward on a new JOS without Corp permits.

What the E.I.R. and E.I.S. allow all of us to do is take a look at the alternatives, discuss and debate them and then provide individual and group comments from a more informed position.

Just about everything on paper suggests that Alternative 4, the recommended project could be the best alternative for the greatest number of reasons. However, the E.I.R. nor the E.I.S. deal with more person-oriented dealings and community considerations the way I would like to see.

The E.I.R. is not designed to consider the pulse of the communities during the studies, whether we like it or not.

Back in 2006 or 2007, when there were sixteen sites under consideration for further study for the placements of exit and access shafts, of those who had an opinion, "over 99%" of those asked stated they wanted 'the shaft' sunk on Terminal Island, according to a County representative. This is probably why two of the alternatives consider an exit shaft on Terminal Island.

South San Pedro and South East RPV Gets The PIT!

Larger view of proposed Tunnel route from Carson to Royal Palms Beach.

More localized map of proposed route.

I have decided to edit this post because I originally wrote it before the comment period began and before I got as 'in to' the Draft Environmental Impact Report as I am currently going through the 3,394 pages listed as being the content of the "Complete" document.

It will also be almost impossible for me to change my thought about the placement of the "Exit Shaft" in the Recommended Project Alternative as mentioned in the Executive Study and throughout the documents.

I strongly believe that even though the placement of the "Exit Shaft" or "exit shaft" would be in an area of almost three times the dollar costs of the exit shaft's recommended placement at the site located on the bottom of the cliff in the Royal Palms area of San Pedro, it remains my feeling that the exit shaft be sunk at the old LAXT terminal on Terminal Island.

My history with The Clearwater Program is that I became interested in it at about the time it was first publicly revealed, back somewhere between 2006 and 2007.

I participated in at least one public hearing when the "NOP" or Notice of Preparation" was being considered, back in 2008.

I was one of many people who were interviewed by at least one senior engineer for the Program along with a Districts Public Relations representative.

I have been and expect to be called by staff members of the Program who offer corrections when I write something they feel needs correcting and I appreciate when I am provided corrections to factual errors I sometimes unwittingly make.

I have written about it on this blog before and other blogs which I occasionally write posts on.

It is my primary belief that The Clearwater Program is a needed project to modernize and provide more options for the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County.

I support placement of a new tunnel between what is commonly known as the Carson California Waste Treatment Plant, which is not really the correct name of the facility alongside the Harbor (110) Freeway.

I will use this post to add some correct glossary terms and to continue to request that anyone and everyone concerned about anything regarding The Clearwater Program, learn more, comment more, and work with all interested parties in creating a new Joint Outfall System that will be so beneficial to residents and businesses in Los Angeles County for year to come.

The Draft Environmental Impact Report (E.I.R. or EIR) was delivered by mail in Compact Disk form on and around February 8, 2012.

The comment period for that report began on February 10, 2012 and the comment period is scheduled to end on April 12, 2012.

Here are two very important names and address where you can submit any and all comments to:

Steven W. Highter
Supervising Engineer, Planning Section
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
1955 Workman Mill Road
Whittier, CA 90601
shighter@lacsd.org

Aaron O. Allen, Ph.D.
Chief, North Coast Branch
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District
Regulatory Branch
915 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA90017
Aaron.O.Allen@usace.army.mil

At this particular time, I would urge everyone interested to write, call and join with other in asking for and possibly demanding that the comment period for the E.I.R. be extended beyond its two-month allowance.

When you go through Chapter 18, Transportation and Traffic (Terrestrial) you will see the number of intersections dealt with in all of the Alternatives for the Program but what you can't read is that no formal route for truck and other construction traffic has been decided at this time and the Program's representatives may take into account the opinions of community members in finally deciding where the truck will go and when they will move.

*Information Note: While the EIR states a 'sort of' number of daily truck trips through the community, no matter what the document implies, I have been told by an official that it could be 'up to 40' trips per day. This should not be taken as alarming right now because the construction processes that would require multiple trips through communities will not begin until approximately mid-2019 through mid-2012, should the recommended Alternative be approved.

I think you will also find areas in the EIR that may have you scratching your head in wonder or even disbelief. The Program's representatives welcome questions and I have found they also provide informative answers, whether I believe those answers or not.

Information was also provided to me that currently, there are absolutely zero answers to questions revolving what the Program's representatives have considered regarding the Paseo Del Mar landslide area and it also was given to me that the Program's representatives haven't really begun to discuss this matter with representatives of the City of Los Angeles, according to a source within The Clearwater Program.

This is another very good reason I believe, that the comment period for the EIR/EIS be extended and that extension MAY include a period of time when we all learn what will happen to Paseo Del Mar.

Another note of interest to me is that the intersection of 25th Street in San Pedro and Western Avenue in San Pedro is not listed as a study intersection, no traffic counts or levels of service appear as having been studied for the EIR.

This is the beginning of the public comment period. Please, if you are interested, comment.

Thank you.

Quick Notes 1 About The Clearwater Program

This post begins what I hope to be a series of posts dealing with learning more about The Clearwater Program and how all interested persons can acquire then use information provided by The Program and members of communities through the area.

One of the first and most important things to consider about providing comments about The Clearwater Program is to join with me and educate ourselves with specific and basic terms is somewhat of a glossary form.

You can access quite a bit of information and resources by simply visiting the Program's Web site at: www.ClearwaterProgram.org . I have it bookmarked.

What the heck is "JWPCP"?

The answer is important for identification purposes and when you begin using it regularly, you will sound more intelligent than others, whether you are or not, and you will be able to communicate with Program representatives better, I think.

The answer is...Joint Water Pollution Control Plant! You may know or think of the facility as the Carson Treatment Plant, or some in some other form.

It is a really big deal as far as the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County goes. In illustrations you will learn that all of the County's sewage treatment and water reclamation plants have the ability to send material to the JWPCP and that the JWPCP is the 'hub' if you will for joining all the other plants to the 'Joint Outfall Systems' (JOS), with one end being at the JWPCP and the other end being below the surface of the Pacific Ocean.

The Clearwater Program seeks to provide a new Joint Outfall System to provide more capacity and relieve the other Joint Outfall Systems, built in 1937 and 1958.

So, this whole thing is about providing a much larger capacity to what is currently used and to allow the other Outfall System tunnels to be inspected and repaired, if necessary. The two older system tunnels run from JWPCP mostly under Western Avenue and out through two somewhat different outflow pipes offshore from Royal Palms beach and spread out into the channel.

It has been my opinion that a new JOS be constructed and the thought of major damage to the two older systems is something I do not want to think about contending with. Remember the three failures of the close-to-the=surface storm drains along Western Avenue? Those were nothing compared to the thought of having to go under Western Avenue to expose and repair damage much further below the storm drains.

JOS equals tunnel. When 'they' talk about a JOS or Joint Outfall System, they are referring to two existing tunnels and the proposed 'tunnel' from the Plant to Royal Palms. When you consider "JOS" please envision a tunnel.

'Program versus Project'. There is a huge difference between 'Program' and 'Project' throughout all analysis of The Clearwater Program.

The Program is county wide involving water reclaimation plants, waste treatment facilitis and just about everything else thoughout the entire entity.

The Project can be considered what ever happens or does not happen between the JWPCP facility and the offshore pipes and diffusers. It is important to know the difference between 'project' and program' for a clearer understanding of issues, I feel.

The 'recommended project' is also known as "Alternative 4 or Project Alternative Number 4" or something similar in identification. It has the outflow from the JWPCP (Carson treatment plant), though a JOS (tunnel) to a diffuser (pipe with lots of holes) under the surface of the ocean, just off shore from Royal Palms.

There are technically six 'Alternative Projects' that had to be studied and documents prepared four. Most of those interested only consider Alternatives 1-4. Alternative 5 is a required alternative and that is true with just about every other EIR studied and documented. Alternative 5 is more commonly known as "No Project" Studies were done and documented considering what the outcomes might be if nothing were done and The Clearwater Program completely cancelled, somewhere along the line.

Alternative 6 is also known as No Federal Action Project. It is a more than highly unlikely project in that the Sanitation Districts would go ahead with a new JOS 'on their own' and without acquiring permits from the Army Corp of Engineers.

There is much more to learn.

Bits and Pieces 54

Lots of bits and pieces, but I'll try to keep it short(er).

From our friends at RPV Listserver.

Mark your calendars! The next EDCO sponsored paper/document shredding day for RPV residents is on Saturday, April 14, 2012 from 9 am to noon at RPV City Hall parking area. Similar to last year, electronics waste will also be collected at that time. This event is open and free to EDCO and UWS residential customers. You will receive more information about this event in the upcoming months.

Thank You.

RPV Public Works

Terri and I used the last opportunity to rid ourselves of unwanted documents and I applaud our City Council, City Staff and especially EDCO for providing the service I hope all or our residents choose to use.

Terrace Cinemas

FEBRUARY FACEBOOK PROMO: Come in any day in February 2012 and receive a FREE CANDY with your purchase of any drink! Tell the concession cashier that you would "like to sweeten the deal" to redeem this offer. This offer is not valid with any other coupons or promotions. Valid any day in February 2012.

Terri and I availed ourselves of last month's free drink, with the purchase of popcorn and we were the first to use that opportunity.

I hope many others used the January promotion and I hope lots and lots of folks attend screenings at our very own Terrace Cinemas, here in Rancho Palos Verdes.

The ticket prices beat every other theatre and folks 'better' than 55 years of age still pay no more than $5 per ticket for non-3D showings. Wednesdays for 'us' is $4 and for everyone wanting to see 2D movies, Tuesdays AND Thursdays continue the fantastic $4 per ticket, anytime opportunities.

The Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Ponte Vista at San Pedro project is still not listed on the L.A. City Planning Department's Web site.

I continue to be hopeful that it will come out soon. We all need to take a look at it and demand an extension of the comment period.

Now that the two sessions by our City Council members are finished, dealing with the goals for our city, it is time to get working more on those goals.

It remains impressive that the repair of San Ramon Canyon is so important to so many people. Let's get that area fixed ASAP!

Bits and Pieces 53

Happy New Year!

The new Miss California is Natalie Ann Pack, who grew up in.............do you really need a hint?

Of course not!

I didn't watch the contest and had no idea who was entered. The Pack family is probably pretty happy with the news.

I have no real excuse for not publishing posts for almost a month. Some might think I was 'burned out' with dealing with the election.

I was very busy with my 'hobby' in the last month of 2011, more busy than I expected to me, but happy to have taken the opportunities.

"Luck" has finally premiered. I don't appear on that show until the last two episodes of its second season. I might be all over the big screen and small screen in 2013.

I did another 'shoot' for a Spike T.V. series that is currently running. My 'bit' won't appear until the show's fourth season and they are just about to premiere the shows third season.

Dave and Pamela are continuing there 'here for a bit, gone for a while, back for a bit' time with our side of the family. They came from Abu Dubai in late December and now are on a cruise in the Carribean, then back for a bit before heading to Reno/Tahoe, the Park City, all before finally jetting away in early February.

Their around the world honeymoon adventures can be viewed at:

http://pamelaanddavertw.blogspot.com/

Now, some news dealing with eastern Rancho Palos Verdes and perhaps, other parts of our city.

Did you know the new Miss California grew up in Rancho Palos Verdes? See, I am now giving you the answer you probably already knew.

Asahi Grill is at least temporarily closed. One sign posted stated the eatery would have some 'remodeling' done.

I have not been to the L.A. Fitness/Bally's since January 1. I need to check it out to see if my registration moved or if I have to decide to join the new organization.

It probably did not matter that last night's fire was not mentioned by our Listserver. The fire broke out about the time of the last power outage last night and burned brush a little east of the area where the much larger fire was. No homes were damaged and it appears nobody got hurt, which is a very good thing.

Mayor Pro Tem Brian Campbell did keep those on his Email list informed and I want to thank him for that.

I have not tried this next bit out, but I read about it on the Facebook Page of the Terrace Theater in R.P.V. I guess if you order popcorn and you say "Popcorn make (you) thirsty" you just might get a free soft drink similar to the size of the popcorn you buy. Heck that is a GREAT thing for an already GREAT movie theater.

If this is true, I'll give another shout out to this wonderful business right here in eastern Rancho Palos Verdes.

I didn't attend the first City Council meeting of the year. It was scheduled for the P.V. I.C. at 6:00 P.M. on January 3 and the primary focus for the meeting were setting the goals for 2012. I will wait to see some of the highlights of the meeting, if there are any.

You do know that our city has its own television channel. It's Channel 33 on the cable system. You can also watch all the meetings you can possibly stand on our city's Web site, too.

I used to have to climb poles and set up and work underground while working for 'the phone company'. Back then I hated to work in the rain for more reasons than I shall type, here.

But now that rain is a memory, especially in late fall and winter, I don't seem to miss it, other than to consider what could happen without enough of it.

I think our water supplies got very well healed in the past few years and I don't think we will see water rationing any time soon.

But as a brush fire burning on January 9, 2012 indicates, we need to be understanding of what might be somewhere on or over the horizon.

I hope everyone has a great 2010. Please remember all the resolutions you made about this year. I have kept and will keep all of mine including not operation a leather-covered bulldozer this year.

I'll try to not procrastinate in writing on this blog and I hope to put out posts more regularly than once every months, or thereabouts.