In the story I wrote on Pasadena's new proposed water rates, I said that some people might have to cut their water usage by up to 30 percent in order to avoid having their monthly bill go up. I arrived at the claim using the city's online water bill calculator with a purely hypothetical customer scenario.

I set myself up as having the city's smallest meter, 5/8", meaning I would likely have a smaller lot. A majority of city users have either a 5/8" or 3/4" meter, and they have the same rates.

I set my monthly usage as 10 HCF, also known as 7,480 gallons. That would set me as a relatively low user of water (assuming I lived with at least one other person), and would put me in the lowest of three billing tiers, in the current rate structure.

Currently, my water rate is $23.25. Under the new plan, my monthly bill would jump to $30.85. The bad news, is that when additional charges are added next summer, part of the plan, the bill would go up further.

So, how much can I reduce my usage to cut that bill? Let's assume I'm fairly average- I water my lawn and landscaping more than they need and shower a little too long, and wash my car without using a bucket, but don't have an excess of landscaping, don't hose down my driveway, and generally don't otherwise waste water.

City staff reports on water usage assume that a person like me should be able to cut my usage by at least 10 percent primarily by watering really carefully, and less frequently, using a bucket to wash my car, and being more conscious about shower time. So I cut my usage by 10 percent. My new bill: $27.72. Plus, it will increase again in a year.

To get to 20 percent savings, I'd probably have to put in a drip irrigation system, and put in new landscaping that uses less water. My new bill would be closer to my old one: $24.59. I would have had to invest some time and money into my yard though.

For most users to reduce their usage 30 percent, most people would have to start reducing the size of their lawn, according to staff reports. That is not a likely course of action for most people, and the utility said in its reports it doesn't expect people to cut back at this level. Those who did would now pay a monthly bill of $23.06, meaning they would have savings, at least this year.

Opponents of the increase have charged that it doesn't incentivize cutting water use. Depends on your perspective: would you just through your hands up in the air and give up when you know you are facing a higher bill no matter what, or would you frantically try to minimize the increase as much as possible?

The other argument, of course, is that those who already don't waste water will be screwed because they have no way to reduce their usage. That is valid, and is the reason the city wants to eventually switch to the budget-based system that would allocate an expected water budget to each household. People who were watering efficiently would get lower rates, and those that weren't, higher. The question is how long should it take a city to set such a system up? Phyllis Currie, of PWP says it will take until next summer just to have the information needed to phase in such a system.

The city last night did a first reading on a water ordinance it previously approved at a public hearing (read about it here). The plan basically pushes for Pasadena residents to cut their water use by 10 percent through a series of new restrictions, and sets up the possibility of larger savings.

Last night Margaret McAustin threw down the gauntlet (in a possible attempt to publicize the new rules) and challenged other council members to open their homes to a water audit to see what improvements could be made. Steve Madison took up the call.

We'll keep our eyes peeled on this one- presumably it will have better results than when a now-out-of-work journalist pestered the head of the Los Angeles Department Water of Power to release his water bills to the public.

I was briefly worried when I went to the polls an hour ago as we were rapidly approaching noon- I didn't want to get caught up in the lunch "rush." I figured maybe there might be a short wait- but there was no one there. Nobody came in during the entire time I voted.

Not a big surprise considering the low turnout predictions (the figures from early morning showed a 2.49 percent turnout), but it still felt strange compared to the line I waited through in the November election at the same polling station.

It is still lower than the L.A. county wide numbers and state-wide numbers, but Pasadena is beginning to catch up. This time last year, the city had a 4.7 percent unemployment rate, and was far lower than the county, state, and nation- it had barely increased from boom times.

I wrote an article last summer when the rate hit 5.7 percent. In it, county economist Jack Kyser opined that Pasadena's unemployment rate would not rise too much because it has so many employees who work at colleges (PCC, Caltech). Normally, in recessions that is a pretty safe job, because of the size of college endowments or state sponsorship.

This time, it didn't prove to be enough of a safeguard for Caltech employees- several dozen were laid off a few months back, making a contribution to the rising unemployment rate.

Still, I would imagine the bulk of the unemployment is coming from financial services, banking, and other white collar office jobs. By comparison, Claremont, another university town which I would think has a higher percentage of workers in college employ than Pasadena, is only at 5.9 percent unemployment.

Here are some of the signs I jotted down while at the May Day Tea Party event Friday:

*Howard Jarvis Lives!

*Fox News = Truth

*Obama's Budget a Man-Caused Disaster

*Born Free, Taxed to Death

*God asks 10 Percent, Gov't asks 39 Percent

*Spread Work Ethic, Not My Wealth

*Your 'fair share' is not my wallet!

Now that the city has (hopefully) resolved the standoff over the Colorado tree project, I think it is really time to look to the future of the city's tree plantings.

The problem the city has had has stemmed from its desire to reassure the business districts that their plans will stay intact, while also appeasing a vocal resident movement to save trees, and to plant certain kinds of trees.

As was stated at the meeting last night, three districts have current plantings scheduled. The city will let them plant- so now the issue should be what happens in the future.

One thing I believe has been overlooked in this entire debate is the fact that the city is now trying to cut resident's water consumption by 10 percent, while also looking to eventually cut it by 20 percent. According to the city's studies on the issue, getting to 20 percent will be more or less impossible unless people begin replacing their water thirsty plant species with native landscaping.

So, if the city is expecting people to begin planting native species that use less water, it seems to me that it should hold itself to the same standards. Instead of having a self-created tree rating system, as the city is now proposing, it would make more sense to simply require that only natives be planted in town. That would drastically reduce the number of possible species that would be planted, making it easier to come to consensus.

And, with the water problems the state has, I can't see how anyone can justify a future plan that would involve planting a non-native species that will need more watering. As long as the city allows the current plans to be "grandfathered" in, I doubt very much there would be a lot of protest against changing the future policy of the city.

This is becoming such a routine story you can almost just write it by template with a few key insertions. Insertion #1: name of failing institution. Insertion #2: bonus their chief executive received. In any case, the Sacramento Bee has the scoop:

California's two biggest public employee pension funds handed out millions of dollars in bonuses last year to their top executives and investment managers, despite losing billions of dollars.

Cities, like Pasadena for example, contribute money to these funds to secure pensions for their employees. CalPERS put a lot of that money into real estate, which has made the funds value plummet. Meanwhile, in an attempt to recoup losses, the institution is now pursuing a risky plan to buy bad mortgage assets from national banks in a hope that it can take advantage of firesale prices.

With regards to the pay out, our own representative Anthony Portantino has been attempting to limit top executives pay checks to $150,000 during the fiscal crisis. The legislation also called for a freeze on bonuses, but according to the Sacramento Bee, that is no longer happening:

The bill, AB 53, initially included a freeze on bonuses, but those provisions were removed "over concerns of breaking existing contracts," said Portantino spokesman Michael Tamariz.

Periodically I get angry emails from people who claim they've been unfairly targeted by the city's parking ticket contractor- there was enough concern on the issue, actually, for the Council to call for a review of the contract. Ultimately they renewed it.

Today, in a related story, one of our reporters Nathan McIntire, told me a painful story about his attempts to park on the streets of Pasadena legally overnight.

The city's overnight parking policy, like many area cities, bars people from parking without an expensive permit. The logic? I am not sure, other than that it brings in revenue.

But apparently, not only are the permits expensive, they are also hard to obtain- McIntire, who recently moved back to Pasadena into an apartment with a roommate that has just one parking spot, tried to get one and was unable to because his vehicle registration does not have a Pasadena address on it. A copy of a bill mailed to his new residence was apparently not sufficient for the city.

Now, he has a problem: his car is registered in his father's name. So to get the paperwork in proper order for the city of Pasadena, he would have to buy the car from his father, and register the new address. In the mean time, McIntire is paying for an expensive temporary parking permit.

Is this really a necessary demand for the city of Pasadena to make? Do they really need this information simply to allow someone to park on the streets overnight? After all, we do have a sizable student population in this town- many of whom drive cars registered to their parents.

Just thought I would share this tale of woe- please feel free to add additional parking grievances in the comments section.

I didn't attend the City Council meeting this week, but I have been catching up on video. As predicted by Councilman Chris Holden last week, Victor Gordo's insistence on putting the Lake Avenue ginkgo and palm planting back on the agenda spawned another painfully long meeting, with the same voices who have opposed the plan saying the same things they always have, as well as the requisite weigh-ins from the Playhouse District folks.

And it isn't over yet. Apparently it will be on the agenda at the next Council meeting on April 27.

I have a hard time seeing a scenario where the Council actually reverses course one more time and authorizes this plan. But then again, I have been surprised by some of the previous twists and turns of this saga.

Bottom line: I really hope April 27 is the meeting that puts a nail in the coffin on the issue, one way or another.

The Pasadena chapter of the national tea party movement held its event Saturday, instead of on tax day, and caught us off guard. Hence, we did not have a reporter in attendance.

Bombastic radio show host John Ziegler showed up to speak, and we hear about 200 people showed up. You can view Ziegler speaking here.

The Council approved a $162,000 contract for improvements to Central and Memorial Park Monday. $63,000 of the cost was for architectural fees for designing a bathroom, an expenditure that got Sid Tyler and Margaret McAustin. Tyler voted against the contract and McAustin abstained, after both suggested that they use the same basic park restroom design that is found elsewhere in the city.

Staff's explanation for why they need the funds was a little hard to follow. Watch for yourself here, starting at 55:24, if you are really dedicated to finding out the answer.

Janette Williams wrote yesterday about a plan for developing Colorado Boulevard, between the intersections of Lake and Mentor (also known as the view out the newsroom window):

PASADENA - Plans to restore the 1926 Constance Hotel and replace small businesses lining the 900 block of East Colorado Boulevard with new stores, restaurants and offices have started through the city process.

The plan came up as an information item in last Monday's meeting and several council members have already expressed some concern about the plan. Sid Tyler and Margaret McAustin both seemed unenthusiastic about changing the entire block, and McAustin specifically said she didn't like the idea of a multi-story development, which is what would be taking place.

Also, the duo, along with other Council members were concerned about the fact that the plan will only be heard by an officer of the Planning Department- according to Richard Bruckner, the plan does not need to go before the Planning Commission or Council unless there is a challenge to the plan filed with the city.

There was concern among the council members that a plan that would seriously change a major block along Colorado could go through without any further input from the council, the Planning Commission, or the public.

I expect we will be hearing a lot more about this plan in the future.

A ruling in the lawsuit filed by the Howard Jarvis Tax Payer's Association appears to confirm that the transfer of funds from a city's utility to a city's general fund is a violation of state law. From the Los Angeles Times:

A Superior Court judge has issued a tentative ruling ordering the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power to repay its customers nearly $30 million that city officials had hoped to spend on other services.

Why is this relevant to Pasadena? The city generally transfers about 7.5 to 8 percent of the Pasadena Water and Power budget to the city's general fund each year. This year the transfer was about 7.5 percent, somewhere around $11 million, but the latest budget recommendation is to up its increase to the full 8 percent because of its troubled budget situation.

It would not be surprising to see L.A. appeal the decision, so I doubt Pasadena will be making changes any time soon. Ultimately, the city would not have to make any changes, though it could risk a similar lawsuit to the one filed by the Howard Jarvis association.

In the long run, if the city did have to make changes, it would certainly impact the city's spending habits: transferring the funds from the city's utility has been an essential part of balancing its budget (when it does balance its budget) each year.

I've emailed Michael Beck to see if this is on the city's radar at all.

UPDATE: Beck tells me (via email) that the decision will not affect Pasadena because PWP has a different charter. I'll be speaking with someone in the city on the topic to get more detail later this week.

I don't know if the merchants in Temple City have been paying attention to the city's removal of ficus trees along Colorado Boulevard or not, but all of a sudden they want something done about their trees. They are requesting the trees be pruned to grow in a taller, more "spindly" form- some other ficus trees in the city apparently grow that way. The city is not sure this can be accomplished and its arborists are recommending removal. From the city manager's weekly update (via our regular TC reporter Alfred Lee):

"We have received a letter requesting removal or severe trimming of the Ficus trees on Las Tunas Dr, east of Kauffman Ave.

d) The cost would be substantial either way. Let me know what you want to do.

Looking at some preliminary numbers, it appears that the turnout at Tuesday's election was dismally low. I don't have numbers for the school districts yet, but based on information from the city clerk's office the District 7 race, the only council race without an incumbent, resulted in only a 17.3 percent voter turnout (meaning the percentage of people in the district who are registered to vote that actually do).

The District 7 race totaled 1883 votes in a race with 5 candidates.... by comparison, Sid Tyler got 1,409 votes when he ran unopposed in 2005. Fewer overall voters voted in the council races this year compared to 2005, a year where there were only incumbents on the ballot. In 2001, when Tyler took on Ciran Hadjian, about 2,500 voters turned out.

Turnout was also much higher in 2007, a year which, in all fairness had a mayoral race with a prominent goth socialist-turned-right-winger candidate, as well as a separate ballot measure, and several competitive council races. Still, the overall voting rate for people voting for council members was over 24 percent. This year's rate should be much lower when it comes out- District 7, the only competitive race is at 17.3 percent- the other races, with Holden running unopposed, and Gordo dominating, should drag down the overall turnout rate considerably.

As for the school races, I don't have the numbers, but Larry Wilson offered an anecdotal view in his column today:

TALK about your low-turnout elections.

Since Terry Tornek won last night with less than 50 percent of the vote last night, this council election will continue for another month and change, until the run-off on April 21.

This was the expected result- Tornek in the lead with York in 2nd place.

There may be some bad blood coming up between the two. As we reported last week, Tornek believes York deliberately violated the Pasadena Fair Campaign Practice by not giving the other candidates her fliers 48 hours before mailing them out. York basically has said there was a mailing mix-up.

Tornek told me last week, and said on KPAS last night that he does not intend to sign the Pasadena Fair Campaign Practice agreement for the run-off election, and will not abide by its rules anymore.

What does that mean? Most likely, very little. The issue at hand has been the idea that if one candidate knows what the other is mailing out to the voters, he can have an advantage over the other candidates. But in reality, I'm not sure it makes a whole lot of difference. Unless one candidate comes up with such a groundbreaking issue that nobody has ever thought of before, and another candidate breaks the agreement to make sure he can get fliers out on the same issue at the same time.

But in reality, there are only so many issues that Pasadena residents care about, and the candidates that have been sending out mailings have all been addressing the same issues all along.

In regards to the run-off, since Tornek has already won almost 50 percent of the vote, he has the clear advantage. I'd expect York to approach Ciran Hadjian about an endorsement and getting her to try and turn out some Hadjian voters for York. She would need all of Hadjian's voters and her own to show up at the run-off to equal the number of voters Tornek had in the first round last night.

I've had some trouble getting in touch with Gary Ettl, the final district 7 candidate who did not fund-raise, and missed several council forum events. But today he gave me a call and assured me that his campaign is active.

Ettl did differentiate himself from other candidates in his stance on issues, saying he does not favor the completion of the 710 extension, whether it is a tunnel or not. He also downplayed traffic problems and other issues on the Westside of the district.

"There is no support for the area east of Lake Avenue," said Ettl, accusing the other candidates of ignoring the eastern part of the city. There is at least some validity to the point, I think, which I attribute to the fact that most of the people that are actively involved in city affairs are further to the west of the city. All of the neighborhoods that organized community forums, for example, were in the west of the district. Under those circumstances, it is to be expected that it would get more attention.

Ettl's main issues about the eastern part of the district seem to be mostly focused on traffic and parking around Pasadena City College, which really is terrible. He also believes that college police and security is overzealous about pulling cars over, or pursuing cars, outside of the campus and immediate area. It did sound, however, like he may have had an ax to grind with PCC on this issue.

Ettl also mentioned high speed limits and traffic problems on San Gabriel Boulevard.

Reporter Nathan McIntire and I are working on an article about the paper's attempts to get records in the Leroy Barnes shooting case, and so far those attempts are going nowhere.

The paper filed a February 20 public records request to the Pasadena Police Department for video from the officers' car, as well as the identity of the officers themselves.

The police sent the request to the city attorney's office, which didn't respond to our request within the legally-required 10 days.

So yesterday we called them up to bug them about it, and today they have requested a 14 day extension. The reason?

A code in the Public Records Act allowing for a delay for "the need to search for and collect the requested records from field facilities or other establishments that are separate from the office processing the request."

In other words, 10 days was not enough time to get between the City Attorney's Office and the city Police Department.

We've also filed requests for the county coroner's office for the Barnes autopsy report.

More to come in the paper this weekend.

From last night's meeting. All stats for the city of Pasadena:

-4,953 people on a waiting list for low-income housing assistance.

-1144 homeless people, a 16 percent increase from last year

-233 of the homeless people are children

The new trail is the dotted green line in the southwest of the picture. You can see how it fits into the larger loop trail. Read more about it in our article today.

Paul Little, President of Pasadena's Chamber of Commerce has a blog post up about trees this morning, scolding tree protesters for suggesting a boycott of local vendors:

A former president of Pasadena Beautiful, flanked by a dozen or so supporters, called passionately for a boycott of one of Pasadena's iconic retailers at public comment during last night's Pasadena City Council meeting. Why try to put one of Pasadena's mainstays out of business? Because the store supported the fifteen year-old Playhouse District streetscape plan that calls for, among other things, cutting down 30 or so ficus and carrotwood trees and replacing them with twice as many palms and ginkos.

Later in the post, Little takes the Star News to task for killing trees to put out a printed paper, which is a sophomoric argument more commonly heard from a radical environmentalist than an advocate for business.

Personally, though, speaking as someone who is going to miss those trees, I agree with Little's idea that a business boycott makes no sense... I believe reasonable people can disagree on issues like this. Also, more to the point, businesses have a right to advocate for a plan that will save them money (there is no denying the expense of the sidewalk repairs the trees are costing, and so far the city has not offered to take over that cost).

In a democracy, I believe, that any frustrations over civic policy should be directed at elected leaders, rather than business leaders, who are not accountable to the public.

Why is this relevant? The bigger picture here is a nationwide anger directed at Wall St brokers and at corporations in general.... lately, of course, everyone is upset at Wall St CEOs who took taxpayer funds and then handed out billions of dollars in bonuses to executives. Some of those CEOs were dragged before congress and lectured by the same legislators who failed to insure that the wouldn't hand out bonuses by making it a part of their legislation (Sen. Clare McCaskill of Missouri called the CEOs "idiots" when to me they looked pretty smart- they took our money and used it to retain their top talent... we looked like the idiots for giving it to them with no strings attached).

But who really deserves to be lectured? The people who we elected to represent us.

In this case, that means the Pasadena City Council.... any grievances over how the tree situation worked out should be filed down at City Hall not taken out on local merchants.