Gerrymandering Landscape Maintenance District One --- The Death of Proposition 218 by Many "Cuts"

by Jim Farley and Michael Wilkerson

“Gerrymander: to divide the constituencies of (a voting area) so as to give one party an unfair advantage.” 

We watch this occur in redistricting after the census every 10 years. The battle over the unfairness in every “redistricting” plan is unending. 

Now we have a special version for Santa Clarita’s most recent special election.

In this special election, both Landscape Maintenance District 1, the voting area in this case, and the “zones” contained in it (that also contain the voting constituencies, aka voters), were determined by the city. 

Further, the city determined not only the geographic extent of those zones, what “landscape maintenance” would be done in each zone, an estimate of what it would cost to perform that maintenance, but an assignment of each parcel’s share of that cost based on an equivalent benefit unit (EBU) rather than a parcel-based methodology.

Ballots were sent out to about 15,000 property owners — to those parcels decided by the City to be in the “voting area.”

A “yes” vote in this election meant different results for different voters.

There were about 7,000 voters who, if they voted “yes,” were voting either to be brought into a new zone or annexed into another zone, and would begin paying an assessment for the first time.

The remaining 8,000 voters were already paying an assessment in LMD 1. If they voted “yes,” in most cases they would be voting themselves a reduction in their own zone’s assessment and the amount they themselves would pay. 

Because there were seven “customized” ballots with five customized cover letters in the ballot packages received by voters, “yes” voters, voting for their own reductions, had no idea they were imposing a new assessment on others.

Because this was a weighted balloting, meaning that those with larger assessments had more powerful votes than those with smaller assessments the conclusion was all but certain: Those voting “yes” to save, in most cases a small amount, would beat out those voting “no” who did not wish to join the district, receive its proposed benefits, or pay the assessment.

So, because of the way the city managed an old school style of political gerrymandering, the outcome was all but certain. 

The intent of Proposition 218 is to ensure that all property tax assessments are subject to voter approval. But our city has created a methodology that employs the creation of a voting area, the addition of parcels to bring in additional revenue, and ensures passage by mixing up a small reduction to some with an overall increase to many, to get approval (based on a weighted vote), that might be otherwise impossible. 

Thus, by thousands of small (property assessment) cuts, Santa Clarita has found a way around Proposition 218, cynically using its provisions in a manner counter to its intention. They have created a clear path to revenue enhancement unhindered by voter approval for property based tax assessments. 

For more details on how this was done please read below.

One thing is for sure, someone in City Hall knows how to use algebra. That knowledge is not working for the taxpayer in Santa Clarita.

Some Deeper Research and Analysis on the LMD Voting---Fair, Ethical, Moral, Right,---Legal?

Santa Clarita Landscape Maintenance District One

Modification 4 Voting Analysis

Commentary by Jim Farley and Michael Wilkerson 

After receiving the balloting results from the city we have been able to analyze them in some detail. What was predicted would happen due to the way the ballots were weighted, and due to the decreases given to existing assessment payers, has indeed happened: The new assessment payers in Newhall, and those annexed into the Thoroughfare Medians Zone, had an assessment forced on them by the rest of the voters in the city who were “voting their pocketbooks” for a decrease. 
The provisions of Proposition 218 were meant to protect taxpayers. But the City, in this election, cynically and effectively used its provisions in a way that was completely counter to the spirit of the proposition.
To understand how the abuse of the taxpayers happened we need to give some background. This election was set up to accomplish several things: 

1. Modify the assessment rate methodology used in several existing zones for landscape maintenance, changing from a parcel based assessment methodology, to an “Equivalent Benefit Unit” based methodology. This does appear to be a fair and sensible change, and did adjust the assessments downward for most of the parcels involved.

2. Create a new zone and place an assessment on parcels in that zone: Currently District One contains 12 different zones. This election annexed new sections of the City into the District adding a new zone, 28 Newhall. The approximately 2000 parcels in 28 Newhall would, if the measured passed, begin paying about $71 per parcel.

3. Annex about 5000 parcels scattered throughout the City into LMD 2008 Zone, already part of District One and authorize the collection of an assessment for median maintenance from those parcels. These parcels did not previously pay any assessment and are said to benefit from the City wide median program and therefore it was argued should pay.

Prop 218, often called “The right to vote on taxes act”, came about after cities were going around Prop 13, which limits property taxes, by adding assessments to tax bills without adequate property owner approval. Prop 218 requires cities to get approval by vote from property owners before adding an assessment and the amenity it is meant to pay for. As it should be, each property owner's vote is weighted based on the amount of their benefit assessment. If the property owners vote for the amenity the city is adding they get the amenity and pay the assessment. If the weighted vote is “no” overall, there is no assessment and no amenity.
The City of Santa Clarita used the weighting provision of Prop 218 in a way that effectively had one group of taxpayers voting to tax another group. By giving a majority of the existing payers in District One a decrease in their assessment the payers were compelled to vote “yes” for the modification (they voted their pocketbooks). Because these “yes” votes carry so much ballot weight the new taxpayers could not have avoided being brought into the district even if all who voted chose to vote “no”. To retain the spirit of Prop 218 the city should have held a separate election for the new assessment payers. Then they could have voted for it and gotten the landscaping or voted against it and done without the landscaping. While we are not at all against the concept that those receiving a benefit should pay for it we are opposed to abusive taxation. This election was a violation of the spirit of Prop 218 and thus an abuse of the taxpayer.      
The attached spreadsheets show the results of our analysis. When we made my public records request to the city we asked for the ballot results with both the parcel number and the zone that each parcel was assigned to. The City provided us with only the parcel number of each vote, not the zone it was in. This meant we had our work cut out for us to assign each parcel to the proper zone. Many of the parcels were easy to assign based on the amount of the assessment. Many were not so easy. By using a County Tax Assessor's Parcel Finder application, the engineer's report, and Google Maps we were able to assign a zone to each parcel. We could thereby construct the data the City failed to provide. 
We must give a disclaimer that when doing this with over 5000 votes it is possible we may have incorrectly assigned some parcels. That being said we were meticulous in our checking and double checking. Any errors should be few and should not have an impact on the overall theme of the results. In any case we assure you that our intention was not to distort the results.
The first section of the Excel spreadsheet shows the overall results for the new assessment payers separated from the existing payers. It can clearly be seen that even if all the new payers voted “no” they didn't have a chance to overcome the weighted “yes” from the existing payers of $1.1 million. 

New and Annexed Zones (Paying for the first time)								Overall
								Assessments
Zone	Total Voted	YES			NO			Increased or
	Weight	Votes	Weight	%	Votes	Weight	%	Decreased
2008-1 Major Thoroughfare Medians	$123,566.01	364	$20,567.34	17%	1565	$102,998.67	83%	Increased
28 Newhall	$174,510.07	188	$26,310.87	15%	520	$148,199.20	85%	Increased
Total	$298,076.08	552	$46,878.21	16%	2085	$251,197.87	84%
Existing Zones (Assessment being adjusted, mostly down)								Overall
								Assessments
Zone	Total Voted	YES			NO			Increased or
	Weight	Votes	Weight	%	Votes	Weight	%	Decreased
26  Centre Pointe	$89,436.46	69	$56,363.52	63%	22	$33,072.94	37%	Undetermined
27 Circle J Ranch	$306,151.44	259	$204,893.90	67%	34	$101,257.54	33%	Decreased
7 McBean & Newhall Ranch	$70,844.52	279	$61,827.93	87%	39	$9,016.59	13%	Undetermined
T2 Old Orchard	$80,450.97	406	$69,346.19	86%	42	$11,104.78	14%	Decreased
T3 Valencia Hills & VH Trees	$82,155.00	202	$73,102.20	89%	30	$9,052.80	11%	Decreased
T4 Valencia Meadows	$88,092.18	152	$30,669.55	35%	71	$57,422.63	65%	Decreased
T46 Northbridge	$783,209.43	516	$367,888.89	47%	438	$415,320.54	53%	Decreased
T47 Northpark	$249,302.53	464	$235,003.30	94%	36	$14,299.23	6%	Decreased
Total	$1,749,642.53	2,347	$1,099,095.48	63%	712	$650,547.05	37%
Total Final Vote	$2,047,718.61	2,899	$1,145,973.69	56%	2,797	$901,744.92	44%

The next section shows a breakdown by type of property. The last shows how voters indeed voted their pocketbooks. There is an obvious relation on whether an assessment increased or decreased and whether taxpayers voted yes or no. 
There is one interesting exception to the correlation. Those in zone T46 that are part of the Northbridge Homeowners Association voted 79% “no” even though they were getting a $13.60 decrease. This happened because that HOA sent a flyer encouraging a “no” vote as they felt the expenses were not being accounted for properly and despite a reduction, the assessment was too high. This also resulted in all of Zone T46 being a net “no” vote. 
The T46 homeowners in the Northbridge Pointe area are a perfect control group to the Northbridge HOA. They are paying the same assessment amount with the same $13.60 decrease and voted 92% “yes”, demonstrating the encouragement a few dollars of assessment reduction can make in a ballot choice.

Voting Breakdown by Zone and Type of Property								If Known
								Amount of
Zone	Total Voted	YES			NO			Assessment
(see below for property descriptions)	Weight	Votes	Weight	%	Votes	Weight	%	Incr/Decr
2008-1 Thoroughfares - SFH	$68,993.28	223	$13,355.47	19%	929	$55,637.81	81%	$59.89
2008-1 Thoroughfares - Condo	$25,514.56	114	$5,120.88	20%	454	$20,393.68	80%	$44.92
2008-1 Thoroughfares - Vacant	$2,470.05	17	$254.49	10%	148	$2,215.56	90%	$14.97
2008-1 5 Thoroughfares Commercial/Other	$26,588.12	10	$1,836.50	7%	34	$24,751.62	93%	Varies
Total 2008-1	$123,566.01	364	$20,567.34	17%	1565	$102,998.67	83%
28 Newhall - SFH	$15,816.97	50	$3,578.50	23%	171	$12,238.47	77%	$71.57
28 Newhall - Condo	$6,979.60	48	$2,576.64	37%	82	$4,402.96	63%	$53.68
28 Newhall - Vacant	$411.47	4	$71.56	17%	19	$339.91	83%	$17.89
28 Newhall - Mobile Home	$35.79			0%	1	$35.79	100%	$35.79
28 Newhall - Commercial/Other	$151,266.24	86	$20,084.17	13%	247	$131,182.07	87%	Varies
Total 28	$174,510.07	188	$26,310.87	15%	520	$148,199.20	85%
26 Centre Pointe - Commercial	$89,436.46	69	$56,363.52	63%	22	$33,072.94	37%	Varies
27 Circle J -  SFH (Includes 2008-1 assmnt)	$171,750.12	200	$150,658.00	88%	28	$21,092.12	12%	Varies
27 Circle J - Condo	$33,898.20	58	$32,768.26	97%	2	$1,129.94	3%	Varies
27 Circle J - Commercial/Other	$100,503.12	1	$21,467.64	21%	4	$79,035.48	79%	Varies
Total 27	$306,151.44	259	$204,893.90	67%	34	$101,257.54	33%
7 McBean & Newhall Rnch - SFH	$49,315.35	171	$41,954.85	1	30	$7,360.50	0	-$2.43
7 McBean & Newhall Rnch - Condo	$21,529.17	108	$19,873.08	92%	9	$1,656.09	8%	-$63.77
Total 7	$70,844.52	279	$61,827.93	87%	39	$9,016.59	13%	Varies
T2 Old Orchard - SFH	$67,079.88	346	$61,401.16	92%	32	$5,678.72	8%	-$13.85
T2 Old Orchard - Condo	$8,917.70	59	$7,852.90	88%	8	$1,064.80	12%	-$58.22
T2 Old Orchard - Commercial/Other	$4,453.39	1	$92.13	2%	2	$4,361.26	98%	Varies
Total T2	$80,450.97	406	$69,346.19	86%	42	$11,104.78	14%
T3 Valencia Hills - SFH	$81,807.00	198	$72,963.00	89%	24	$8,844.00	11%	-$11.31
T3B Valencia Hills Trees - SFH	$348.00	4	$139.20	40%	6	$208.80	60%	$34.80
Total T3	$82,155.00	202	$73,102.20	89%	30	$9,052.80	11%
T4 Valencia Meadows - SFH	$37,477.30	119	$24,107.02	64%	66	$13,370.28	36%	$0.00
T4 Valencia Meadows - Condo	$5,014.02	31	$4,710.14	94%	2	$303.88	6%	-$50.65
T4 Valencia Meadows - Commercial/Other	$45,600.86	2	$1,852.39	4%	3	$43,748.47	96%	Varies
Total T4	$88,092.18	152	$30,669.55	35%	71	$57,422.63	65%
T46 Northbridge HOA - SFH	$388,651.14	107	$83,338.02	21%	392	$305,313.12	79%	-$13.60
T46 Northbridge Pointe - SFH	$201,724.74	237	$184,589.82	92%	22	$17,134.92	8%	-$13.60
T46 Northbridge - Condo	$109,236.05	171	$99,889.65	91%	16	$9,346.40	9%	-$208.32
T46 Northbridge - Commercial/Other	$83,597.50	1	$71.40	0%	8	$83,526.10	100%	Varies
Total T46	$783,209.43	516	$367,888.89	47%	438	$415,320.54	53%
T47 Northpark - SFH	$113,673.78	275	$105,253.50	93%	22	$8,420.28	7%	-$10.00
T47 Northpark - Condo	$57,699.06	188	$53,967.28	94%	13	$3,731.78	6%	-$53.68
T47 Northpark - Commercial/Other	$77,929.69	1	$75,782.52	97%	1	$2,147.17	3%	Varies
Total T47	$249,302.53	464	$235,003.30	94%	36	$14,299.23	6%
Total Final Vote	$2,047,718.61	2899	$1,145,973.69	56%	2797	$901,744.92	44%

Correlation between vote increase/decrease and Yes/No vote								If Known
								Amount of
Zone	Total Voted	YES			NO			Assessment
(see below for property descriptions)	Weight	Votes	Weight	%	Votes	Weight	%	Incr/Decr
T46 Northbridge - Condo	$109,236.05	171	$99,889.65	91%	16	$9,346.40	9%	-$208.32
7 McBean & Newhall Rnch - Condo	$21,529.17	108	$19,873.08	92%	9	$1,656.09	8%	-$63.77
T2 Old Orchard - Condo	$8,917.70	59	$7,852.90	88%	8	$1,064.80	12%	-$58.22
T47 Northpark - Condo	$57,699.06	188	$53,967.28	94%	13	$3,731.78	6%	-$53.68
T4 Valencia Meadows - Condo	$5,014.02	31	$4,710.14	94%	2	$303.88	6%	-$50.65
T2 Old Orchard - SFH	$67,079.88	346	$61,401.16	92%	32	$5,678.72	8%	-$13.85
T46 Northbridge HOA - SFH	$388,651.14	107	$83,338.02	21%	392	$305,313.12	79%	-$13.60
T46 Northbridge Pointe - SFH	$201,724.74	237	$184,589.82	92%	22	$17,134.92	8%	-$13.60
T3 Valencia Hills - SFH	$81,807.00	198	$72,963.00	89%	24	$8,844.00	11%	-$11.31
T47 Northpark - SFH	$113,673.78	275	$105,253.50	93%	22	$8,420.28	7%	-$10.00
7 McBean & Newhall Rnch - SFH	$49,315.35	171	$41,954.85	1	30	$7,360.50	0	-$2.43
T4 Valencia Meadows - SFH	$37,477.30	119	$24,107.02	64%	66	$13,370.28	36%	$0.00
2008-1 Thoroughfares - Vacant	$2,470.05	17	$254.49	10%	148	$2,215.56	90%	$14.97
28 Newhall - Vacant	$411.47	4	$71.56	17%	19	$339.91	83%	$17.89
T3B Valencia Hills Trees - SFH	$348.00	4	$139.20	40%	6	$208.80	60%	$34.80
28 Newhall - Mobile Home	$35.79			0%	1	$35.79	100%	$35.79
2008-1 Thoroughfares - Condo	$25,514.56	114	$5,120.88	20%	454	$20,393.68	80%	$44.92
28 Newhall - Condo	$6,979.60	48	$2,576.64	37%	82	$4,402.96	63%	$53.68
2008-1 Thoroughfares - SFH	$68,993.28	223	$13,355.47	19%	929	$55,637.81	81%	$59.89
28 Newhall - SFH	$15,816.97	50	$3,578.50	23%	171	$12,238.47	77%	$71.57
2008-1 5 Thoroughfares Commercial/Other	$26,588.12	10	$1,836.50	7%	34	$24,751.62	93%	Varies
28 Newhall - Commercial/Other	$151,266.24	86	$20,084.17	13%	247	$131,182.07	87%	Varies
26 Centre Pointe - Commercial	$89,436.46	69	$56,363.52	63%	22	$33,072.94	37%	Varies
27 Circle J -  SFH	$171,750.12	200	$150,658.00	88%	28	$21,092.12	12%	Varies
27 Circle J - Condo	$33,898.20	58	$32,768.26	97%	2	$1,129.94	3%	Varies
27 Circle J - Commercial/Other	$100,503.12	1	$21,467.64	21%	4	$79,035.48	79%	Varies
T2 Old Orchard - Commercial/Other	$4,453.39	1	$92.13	2%	2	$4,361.26	98%	Varies
T4 Valencia Meadows - Commercial/Other	$45,600.86	2	$1,852.39	4%	3	$43,748.47	96%	Varies
T46 Northbridge - Commercial/Other	$83,597.50	1	$71.40	0%	8	$83,526.10	100%	Varies
T47 Northpark - Commercial/Other	$77,929.69	1	$75,782.52	97%	1	$2,147.17	3%	Varies

What is most bothersome is the fact that so many parcels, about 7000 in all will be forced to pay a new assessment, based on the incentive given taxpayers in other areas by a slight reduction in assessment.
This methodology of using reduced assessments for some, (in numbers so large) that “yes” votes, combined with the weighting, are assured and therefore “no” votes hardly have a chance does not seem at all fair. On one hand it could be considered a cynical manipulation, and on the other a clumsy poorly thought out combination of assessment changes by City Staff with no malicious intent. The net result is the same: some people voted to add new assessments on others in order to reduce their own assessment, and the measure got passed. 
In conclusion we can say we do not believe that what was done was ethical, moral, right, or at all in the spirit or intent of Prop 218.
Whether it was legal is another matter. Will other cities take note and use this method to skirt and essentially gut Prop 218 in the future? Time will tell.
Should we demand more transparency, clarity, and time for public examination of how such measures are handled by our City? Yes.
Should we assume that the City performs without error, sit back, not ask questions, and accept this and whatever is next to come. No.
This election is now water under the bridge but at least we know the results and how they came to be. While our city council did show concern at how this election was done they voted it in anyway. They have admonished city staff to not let this happen again. How effective that admonition will be remains to be seen. The citizens will need to remain diligent and scrutinize future elections to make sure this abuse does not happen again.


Jim Farley


Michael Wilkerson

a YES vote VISUALLY Explained,---kinda

Prologue

When people voted YES many different things happen for owners of many different parcels. For some owners, who didn’t get ballots, nothing changed except some other people paid less taxes, and some others ones paid more taxes or a new tax entirely (than they all did before). This is a visual explanation, provided by City maps of some of what those YES votes changed. Remember, not everyone in the City got a ballot, there were seven different ballots, five cover letters, and the YES votes decreased some assessments, increased others, changed the method of assessment, created new zones, modified others, annexed additional properties, and etc. An attempt to convey all of these things will not be made here, by visual means or otherwise. Please forgive me for the incompleteness.

Annexation to District 1, Zone 2008-1

Some people were already paying an assessment for this. Those parcels are ORANGE. Most of those people didn’t need a ballot.

The people in the YELLOW areas probably didn’t need a ballot either, but they are in the City, but do not and will not pay this assessment, at least for now.

Some people when they voted YES were actually voting to be annexed into Zone 2008-1 (Major Thoroughfare Medians.) That means they would join the others who had already been paying for the trees and landscaping that has been added, to some streets, by the City.  Those parcels are GREEN, probably because that is new revenue.
Which Parcel Owners Got Ballots?

This colorful map came from the City. You can see it for yourself here. I did the best I could with a Magic Marker, but I never was any good at staying between the lines. The RED marker is on the zones that had changes, either up or down, or any of those etc.’s mentioned above. Not a whole lot in common. Most of them aren’t really next to each other, although they are all next to some zone, or in some cases next to some area that isn’t a zone,---yet, or maybe never. Please add to this, in your mind if you can, the GREEN areas in the map above this one. Remember, those green areas are getting to pay a new assessment for the first time. Most of the people in the RED areas will get a decrease in their assessment.

I’ll try to add another map at another time. But the City did provide a ballot package and a ballot that made it clear whether an assessment would go up or down if the owner voted YES.

In one of the emails I got from the City it said: ” After concluding multiple Proposition 218 ballot procedures, the City has experienced that most owners want the necessary information to help them make an informed decision, but the ballot needs to get to the point as well. To this end, after considering the information contained in the ballot package, property owners want to make the decision that is best for them, and that usually comes down to "how much more or less will I pay if I vote YES or NO." …. the customized ballots sent out on July 27, 2011 meet this goal.”

So maybe no one really needs any visuals…just to know if they will be paying more or less.

Hi, I am A Still Curious John Newhall and...

I watched our City Council on SCVTV.COM, last night, and found myself more confused than ever regarding the Landscape Maintenance Districts Modification.

There was a public hearing on the matter, but before the hearing could begin, Joe Montes, the City Attorney, had to clear a few things up. Apparently, three of our Council Members might have a conflict of interest in the matter and probably shouldn’t vote because they own properties are within or close to the areas that might be affected by their final decision. Those three are, Weste, McLean, and Ender.

Oddly enough, in order for City Staff to go forward with the balloting, our City Council had to vote for a few resolutions on the matter, and did so on June 28, 2011. (This year, for those without a calendar.)  This was done by agenda item 11 that day. One resolution read in part:

Resolution 11-65 to approve Engineer's Report, and declare its intention to order annexations into, detachments from, creation of new zones, dissolution of existing zones, and assessment rate adjustments in Landscape Maintenance District Nos. 1 and T1, and to levy an assessment thereon, taking certain other actions in connection therewith. (And Resolution 11-64.)

On June 28^th the “conflict” was not serious enough to prevent them from voting unanimously for this item, except for Ender who wasn’t there. But last night, (also this year),after ballots had been sent out and returned, and it was time for a public hearing on the matter, there was concern that there might be enough of a conflict to cause some legal problems down the road.

Now if three of our five Council Members were to recuse themselves, the measure never could pass. But it started the process on June 28^th when apparently none of the Council were “conflicted.” The City Attorney therefore, according to the law, held a kind of raffle, handing out envelopes randomly to the three conflicted Council Members. Those three Council Members giggled as they opened their envelopes. The lucky winner, who got to preside over the public hearing, and will get to vote on the matter in the future was Weste.

Is this any way to run a local government? You betcha!

So Kellar, Ferry, and Weste will ultimately decide this issue after the vote is counted.

Now on to the public hearing… Only four people spoke on the matter---all negative Nellies. Apparently everyone else in the Santa Clarita Valley didn’t care, didn’t know about it, thought it was a good idea because they would save a few bucks the first year in not-taxes, or were just too damned confused.

All of those who spoke explained several good reasons for their lack of support.  In a week or so they whole thing should be on SCVTV.COM,--- so look for it. But Jim Farley’s appeal was the simplest: He just didn’t think it right that he could vote YES and save himself about $15 the first year, and create a whole new not-tax of about $60 for several thousand neighbors. He was also concerned that the structure of the weighted balloting was such that it would be impossible for the NO vote to ever be successful, giving no voice to those who would have their not-taxes raised.

Despite the logic of his analysis, (See Jim Farley's Spreadsheet), both Ken Striplin  and Darren Hernandez, who dutifully did their duties per the June 28^th agenda item, said you could never know how the public was going to vote, and the vote was not predictable.

But included in my correspondence with the City was this little gem from Dennis Luppens, Special Districts Administrator, City of Santa Clarita:

To this end, after considering the information contained in the ballot package, property owners want to make the decision that is best for them, and that usually comes down to "how much more or less will I pay if I vote YES or NO." I believe the customized ballots sent out on July 27, 2011 meet this goal.

Customized ballots? Now ain’t that an awesome concept?

Anyway, Kellar was overtly outraged by this and really did push the issue with both Hernandez and Striplin. Both of whom in my opinion, gave not so good answers. Better answers were provided by Luppens in the email Q&A below.

Kellar suggested that given the state of the economy it might be better to just hold off on some projects rather than raising anyone’s taxes. He was tired of seeing people losing their homes. I am one of those who will have a new not-tax. I live south of Lyons and there are at least five homes in the area that are empty and for sale. Not that anyone is going to forced out of their home by a new $60 not-tax, but the man has a point.

So where are we now with this? Well they are counting and weighting those ballots over at City Hall. And when it passes, I mean if it passes?, then the City Council will have to pass a final measure. On that measure only Kellar, Ferry, and Weste will be voting. Now I don’t know, since only three can vote does that mean two Members can pass this thing? Back to you Joe…

I am still trying to figure out that EMU, EBU thing.

Anyway please comment here, or over at SCVTalk.com and visit I Heart SCV.com.