Better late than never, back to WL after a week on the road. Interesting comments on the BOA meeting, sorry I was not there.
A few thoughts on the comments of the meeting. The expired water contract isn't really news, it has been expired for some time, and periodic updates have been given at BOA meetings. Like everything else, KC MO is slow...to wit, Peret Property, Barry Road. No big impact here, fact is they (KC) need our business as a customer...don't think they would consider closing the spigot.
Based on the comments about the Clean Water compliance hard to tell what the issue is. In the past it has been pretty much a cut and paste situation. The City continues to make steady progress on storm water. I rather doubt we are in danger of paying a fine of $10,000 a day.
The apparent concern about the City audit is puzzling. The audit has been conducted in the current format for some time. It has not prevented the City from completing two bond issues and obtaining a number of grants. The City has been compliant in posting financials semi-annually as required by law. I'd have to dig further, but the innuendo is reminiscent of the WLIC audits of audits. The new audit firm represents the 3rd firm in 6 years, a healthy turnover, in my opinion, to have a fresh set of eyes on the City finances.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I am still trying to understand the Clean Water issue. If as Brian says it is about the water going over the dam overflow, would the WLIC not be involved? Or, like many things, is there more to the story?
PS: was just checking the time of my post... I see the time shown is Pacific Time.
And I thought you were an insomniac. Part of the Clean Water is what flows over the dam and technically that is the WLIC. The City (and citizens) have a responsibility to insure water quality (largely storm water) that flows from/through the City into the lake. A number examples of how the City is doing this are: the latest bond issue (road & streets) which has provided the money to improve deteriorating culverts etc, enforcement and fines of residential/developer lapses in erosion management (including Sonoma) and the recent addition of an ordinance that allows the city to pursue polluters/silters residing outside the city that cause problems. I think the real concern would be if the City was derelict in performing meaningful actions that preserve Clean Water in our watershed and thus have a negative impact downstream. Clearly that is not the case...as I see it.
Interesting article and video.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120897815466039041.html?mod=hpp_us_inside_today
argh. Chopped off the end of the link. make that .html to view the link
Post a Comment