Pages

Monday, September 12, 2005

Is it Spin or just Bad Information?

The Los Osos CSD held an "emergency" [Special] 8 a.m. board meeting this morning to vote on spending $4,501.20 for a Performance Bond that will buy $225,060.00 worth of "Restoration Work" at the Tri-W site (to be scraped clean and contoured), the Broderson discharge site (filled with thick chaparral, to be prepped for wastewater discharge) and the staging area on 18th and Pismo [correction: Not 18th and Pismo, it's the South Bay Well Site at Nipomo & South Bay Blvd.] IF the recall and/or Sewer Initiative election results in work being stopped at those sites. The contractors were standing by their equipment at Tri W early this morning waiting for the vote so they could continue their grading work. General Manager, Bruce Buel, had originally believed he didn't need a Board vote to go ahead and buy the bonding coverage, but turns out that he was mistaken. So a rote vote was taken (no surprises there -- Tacker voted no because she wanted the Board to wait until after the election and Gustafson, LeGros & Hensley voted yes, with Schicker unable to stay for the meeting, due to work commitments.)

The interesting wrinkle came when it became clear that the performance bond document voted on ONLY covered restoring the site to a "non-erosive and non-hazardous condition" should work be stopped. There might be some hydroseeding just to keep erosion down, but that's it. No trees, no bushes, no "restoration" of all the plant life destroyed, no mention of "natural contours." Nothing but minimum safety and erosion control at the sites.

What made that so interesting was in a August 24th Bay News story on the tree cutting at the Tri-W site, our own Public Information Office, Mike Drake, was quoted as saying that, " . . the site is restored to its natural contour, if the project is ultimately not built at the Tri-W site. . . . If trees are felled, they would be replaced by seedlings of native species."

Uh, not according to the Performance Agreement voted on today and the information discussed at this morning's meeting. The bond only brings the land back to "safe condition" to prevent flooding or soil erosion. That's it.

So, after the meeting, I asked Mr. Drake who told him about seedlings of native species or trees & etc. Well, darned if he couldn't remember since he attends so many meetings. He thought it might have been something the contractors might have told him? But he wasn't sure.

So, here's the question: Could the bucolic image of tree seedlings and natural contours (instead of bare scraped earth mooshed into a bare-bones minimum grading for erosion control and safety, with maybe some hydoseeding thrown on it) be considered "spin?" Or did our PIO get the wrong information from a vague source (a contractor, maybe?) who may or may not have known what the heck he was talking about? Spin? Or bad info? Dang! Don't you hate when that happens?

Meantime, by voting to proceed with the deep grading and trenching, the CSD's vote this morning once again indicated their care and concern for the community's opinion on the matter. And, by refusing to do the least amount of irreparable damage before the election, they've ensured that the sites will remain a destroyed mess for years, should the recall succeed.

Depending on the election's outcome, it could be considered the CSD's little gift to the community, one that could go on giving for years and years. Gosh, thanks.

12 comments:

Shark Inlet said...

So you appear to be saying that the board should not have allowed any progress on the work (which has already been approved and funded) until the election is over.

That is a good point. However, considering the deadlines imposed by external sources, it seems like a good idea to me.

Perhaps your complaint should be with those behind measures B, C, D and E who coudn't get their petitions signed and turned in early enough to avoid this problem.

To me it sounds like the board has done exactly what they should have done ... go forward with work they've been charged by the public to do but they are hedging their bets so that the sites can be regraded and replanted (with natives instead of the invastive species that are there now).

Churadogs said...

Dear Shark, Apparently you didn't read what I've written. The Bond does NOT include replanting of anything, except possibly fast growing hydroseeding for erosion control ONLY. The term "restore" in the contract only convers safety (no huge slopes or holes left) and erosion control. That's it. No trees, no natives, no nothing.

The CSD could have scheduled the election sooner than they did, the choice was entirely theirs to make. Had they done that, the election would have been over before any treefall and they wouldn't have lost one day of their work schedule.

Shark Inlet said...

I know about hydroseeding and current CA state laws related to hydroseeding for erosion control. CA natives are required for this purpose unless there are special circumstances.

Fast growing? CA natives grasses and forbs. Toss a few hundred shrubs per acre and we are set.

I would also imagine that a few who oppose the sewer will step in and buy the property to keep it out of the hands of developers. Maybe they would plant a few native trees.

Maybe there are special circumstances here that I am unaware of, but I can't think of any unusual circumstances here where anything other than CA natives would be allowed for erosion control.

So there won't be plants in pots ... wait a few years.

In any case, I rather doubt this will come to anything. I believe the recall will fail. Everytime it comes up in casual conversation, people I know with seem to keep saying "oh no, this again ... didn't we hear that it could be done cheaper six years and $80M ago? ... and the people who sued to delay the project are those behind the recall ... enuf of that!". It is only the shrillest TREEcall people who actually think costs will go down by such an action.

Anonymous said...

Ann,

This site is interesting. Look at your M. O. You ask questions, some of them are actually relevant. But when asked questions, the TREEcall people are providing a bunch of fluff. The tree candidates have already turned into politicians promising everything. Lordy, Lordy, we have a sewer for $50/month!

Their plan is to make a plan, I just looked at their site, after I got the flyer. In other words, they don't know what they will do. MOJO ain't gonna build a sewer. Wouldn't it be a good idea to have some non-fluff answers before they stop a project?

It appears that are good at blaming and frivolous lawsuits. I would expect that's what we'll see if they get elected. More blame, (of course they won't be responsible), and more lawsuits.

And, of course, NO SEWER.

If this town is foolish enough to let Al Barrow design a sewer, I think it'll get what it deserves, but then again, I guess it was foolish enough to let the Solutions Group design a sewer.

Friends don't let friends design sewers!

Churadogs said...

Dear Let, Regarding your hope that someone will toss a few hundred shrubs per acre, not sure if that's covered in the bond. Ya gets what ya's pay for and the payout on this is only about $225,000. Depending on how deep they're digging and how much would have to be re-filled at all the sites, you'd probably get the absolute minimum "restoring".

As for the recall not coming to anything, if you actually felt that way, why all the dust up and the Dreamer's war chest of over $34,000? Seems like a lot of money to spend on a lot of nothing. Plus, if the recall is a lot of nothing, why didn't the CSD schedule an early election to get it all out of the way? Their stated rationale was: Oh, we want to "educate" the voters. Bwa-hahahah. Right, "educate" the voters.Oh, my ears and whiskers.

to Timetovote, gosh, thanks, some of the questions I ask are actually relevant? Really? Then what are the answers? Do you have the answers to those relevant questions? I sure haven't been able to get answers to them for lo these many years.

Mojo won't build a sewer but what's gone missing in the sewer wars is some honest answers by honest engineers with no dog in this fight. Here's a "relevant question" for you: What do you think would happen if you got Steve Hyland (WMH) and Mr. Harris (Cleath & Assoc -- water) , a couple of reps from various advanced sewer ponding technologies, our own CSD engineer and toss in good old George Gibson (remember him, the county engineeer who started this whole mess by repeatedly misrepresenting the county's sewer plan's costs, despite repeated pleas to stop spinning and fudging his numbers) in a room together and said: Give me four sewer plans that will meet the nitrate numbers, one step/steg/ponding technology, one traditional gravity/sewer plant type, one in town on Tri W, one out of town. The plan aslo has to include steps to stop salt water intrusion (ag exchange?) and forestall inporting state water.(ag exchange again?) Besides capital costs, each estimate would have to include long term O&M costs regarding energy use and sludge removal and disposal, ability of the plant to expand to include all the areas in Los Osos are are outside the prohibiiton zone (which are going to be brought under the authority of the RWQCB at some point),and meet expected future water quality regs that will be coming down from the State and Feds in the coming years. Do you think those guys could do that? I do. And wouldn't you love to see their plans and cost guestimates? I would. Those guys are not "fluff." Those guys are not "friends" designing sewers. And those four plans and estimates would then be put on a ballot for the "foolish" people of this community to vote on. (i.e. "buy) Then we could all go home and wait for the bill.

Shark Inlet said...

I am rather glad that the Save the Dream people are now finally able to spend some money to educate people about the issues rather than letting anti-sewer flacks continue to spout nonsense unchecked. You might want to check their website sometime and in particular the "Why Downtown?" and "Facts!" sections. Here they quite effectively point out why moving the project now would cost more than the current site. Certainly it would be interesting to hear your point of view on why the moving the project now would be a good idea even though it would cost us more money. Hardly something you would want to vote for if you are already concerned about the costs. If they've got their facts wrong anywhere, please show us.

Right now it seems to me that the THREEcall people are saying that they will lower costs but they've offered nothing other than the hope that the costs cannot get worse.

Face it, we made this mess. You would say that it has all been the fault of the CSD. I would agree that much of the fault is the CSD. I would also point out the various lawsuits that have raised costs considerably.

The real question is ... do you want to get rid of the people who want the current project in the current location and put in people who promise to stop the project. I can only see increased costs by doing this. I don't think the possibility of a sewage plant out of town is worth the additional costs ... especially when there is a high chance that the recall will result in a bankrupt CSD and the county picking up the current project at the current location at an increased cost.

So, the question remains ... why do you support an action that is likely to raise the monthly costs for all obliged to pay? Do you hate the current majority that much that you are willing to have us all pay more just so you can get rid of them? Is adding $20M (or likely more) to the costs worth it? Please explain why we should all be willing to pay more just to get rid of the last remnants of Pandora.

Churadogs said...

Inlet, you're making some mighty big assumptions about me, none of which are supported by much of anything I can see.

First off, I think this project is the wrong project in the wrong place for the wrong reasons. In light of what's coming for septics outside the prohibition zone, it really is the wrong project in the wrong place. Second, I believe in being pound wise; Is it worth it to pay a little more now and so save waaaaay more down the road? You say, NO. I say, Yes. And, considering #2, boy are we gonna pay really really big time later if we don't redesign and plan better now. But, third, and most important, the decision to put this particular sewer plant in the middle of town or not is not mine to decide. It is the community's, and that's exactly what they'll do on Sept 27.

You will vote and I will vote, the votes will be counted, then we can all go home and wait for the bills to arrive.

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

Considering what you've written it doesn't seem too far a strech to believe that you believe that you support the recall. And considering you've not taken any of the many opportunities to explain why you believe the recall will save money, I must conclude you believe it is likely the "move the sewer" idea will raise our costs. You also seem to believe that the CSD (from day 1) was making decisions that were not well thought out and that the current majority is chock-full-of-hubris.

If I am incorrect on any of these, I apologize and beg your forgiveness.

You've only hinted at why the current sewer plan may be inadequate ("what's coming for septics outside ..." and "boy are we gonna pay realy big time..."). Please elaborate because I am interested. It is far from clear to me that moving the sewer and taking on additional costs (perhaps on the order of $50M due to fines, lost design cost on the current plan, construction cost increases plus additional lawsuits) will allow us to "save waaaaay more down the road". Why do you think that the RWQCB would be pushing us into a plan now that they will later find indadequate? I hardly think that the RWCQB staff would be that vindictive or short-sighted.

If you are suggesting that folks outside the prohibition zone will be required to tie into the current program or to develop their own solution, I am not convinced. Let us know your reasoning.

Anonymous said...

Ann,

Your question about Hyland/Harris, et. al. is relevant. And this is an answer. They would encounter a lot of difficultly, because it is a massive public works project. And those guys will spin numbers! They all have to be paid, and paid well. Your 'dream idea' sounds great, but it seems your using the same cast of characters from the past, and assuming they'd even want to work together. Yes, they might come up with a project that is 'better', and they might not. And it will take 4-5 years to permit, and there will be resistance from a new site. And it will be expensive so there will be other lawsuits to delay. And instead of paying off a SRF loan around 2028, we might be paying off a higher interest longer term loan in 2040. And you will have introduced 5 more years of pollution in that time, that could add 10 years to get rid of that pollution. And if you want to stave off that 5 years of pollution, you'll have to spend even more money.

My mistake, Friends don't let Friends plan sewers!!

Churadogs said...

Mr. Inlet, regarding what's coming for septics outside the prohibition zone. A bill in Sacramento is wending its way through the legal mills that will put all septic tanks in Calif. that are in "impaired watersheds" (Why, that's US!") under the control of the various Regional Water Control Boards. If you are concerned with polluting the bay, you will be delighted, as I am, that this bill will pass. When it does, the RWQCB will have to take a gander at all the houses on the east side of South Bay Blvd,for example, especially those whose leach fields are ajacent to the the creek. (Folks who are alarmed at coliform counts in the bay have been curiously silent about all those homes over there. They were cut out of the prohibition zone for, as usual, unknown reasons, but mainly, I have been told, because the RWQCB's after the biggest chunk now, and will get to all those . . . later. When that "later" comes, what will those folks do? Monarch Grove's private sewer system has had endless problems, and I believe (and correct me if I'm wrong) but I believe they're going to be hooking up to the sewer.

As for the RWQCB being vindictive or short-sighted, like all regulatory board everywhere, they can only legally deal with peas that are directly on their plates. They are not allowed (remember) to dictate plans or systems, they can only dictate after the fact discharge numbers & etc. The fact that this bill will put heretofor unregulated septics under their control means that someone in some water regulatory office somewhere IS long sighted, and I believe that Los Osos needs to be, too.

Apparently, Timetovote thinks Hyland/Harris et. al are a bunch of liars and thieves? I disagree. Since this is a "dream team" let's speculate that we could also make it a part of the contract that none of the guys in the room would be allowed to bid on actually building whatever project they came up with so they didn't have a dog in the fight. Could they design a better project, especially if their focus was shifted to include avoiding bringing in imported water? (i.e. actually look at and pencil out Ag Exchange, something the CSD never did), and toss in a requirement that the plant be a low energy sucker and low sludge producer to save O&M costs down the road and etc? I think they could.Engineers are amazing guys. Give them the correct perameters and they'll come up with pretty extraordinary stuff. Give them bad paramaters and they'll come up with not so extraordinary stuff. It's GIGO, so it really is critical that the GI is right.

As for Spectator, I'm not asking you or anyone else to believe "my crap," as you so rudely put it. If you live in Los Osos, on Sept 27, you, like I, will finally have a say in this matter. What that outcome will be, I have no clue.

What has been interesting to me in a lot of this "dialogue," is this: I know a lot of the comments are rhetorical only-- either you already have the answers, or don't have the answers but don't care that you don't have the answers. this is all just political theatre --(which makes me wonder if any of you have been assigned to me by the Dream Team? -heh-heh) but beyond that, in this community (and I suspect the world at large), there seems to be two type of people: Bird In The Hand Do As You're Told Stick With The Bad Knowns We're Helpless What Can We Do Oh Well Better Half A Loaf,& etc, versus the The Hell You Say We Can Do Better Than This You're Manipulating Us We Don't Beleive You Let's Go Try Something Else.

It will be interesting on the 27th to see what proportion shake out into election results. (Yes, I'm overlooking the I Don't Know, I Don't Care & I Don't Care To Know -- i.e the apathy crowd. That's the number I'm really interested in, aren't you? )

Shark Inlet said...

My motivation ... to keep the bills for those in the prohibition zone as low as possible.

If the State mandates my buddies in Cabrillo or my buddies East of South Bay are required to buy their own sewage treatment plant, that is fine. Considering those of us on the chopping block now are attempting to deal with our mess and the mandate of a solution, it makes sense for us to find a solution to our problem, not for someone else's problem that could ultimately arise in 10 years.

I guess you are arguing it would be best for the CSD to plan a sewage treatment plan and sewer that can handle all 20 thousand residents at build-out. The problem is that a sizable fraction of those people (those outside the prohibition zone) are not now obligated to do anything so they won't be willing to help pay for a solution that would include them.

Maybe your idea is a good one, but I don't believe it would be possible to get them to agree to pay until there is some sort of mandate from the State ... and even then there would be additional lawsuits and delays.

To me it still seems that the current design (whether flawed or not and whether decisions have been made correctly or not) is the best chance we have for lowering our monthly bills.

Again, I've yet to hear a recall supporter who can explain how moving the plant outside town will save money. Sure ag-exchange is a possibility and sure a cheaper treatment plant are good but the fines plus loss of low interest loan plus in increase in construction costs (and lawsuits and the rest) will result in a project which is more expensive even if it is "near the cemetary".

I gather that you would consider it penny-wise and pound foolish to proceed with a project which will meet the current state mandate but will likely be inadequate to handle those currently outside the prohibition zone.

Me, I'm interested in keeping my monthly bills low.

Churadogs said...

Penny wise, pound foolish, often ends up turning into pound foolish and pound really, really foolish in the long run.

But that's your choice.