Pages

Sunday, October 16, 2005

Yes, Los Ososians, It’s Time to write your Assemblyman & State Senator. It’s fun! It’s easy! Grab your crayons.

O.K. so here’s my letters to State Senator Maldonado and State Assemblyman Blakeslee:

Dear Sirs:

I know some members of our Los Osos CSD Board have contacted you about the State Revolving Fund’s refusal to [continue to] fund the Los Osos Wastewater project so the project can stay on track to get quickly re-sited [part of all that HUGE nice money the previous CSD board majority tacked onto the original loan when the construction bids went into the stratosphere]

I will presume the district’s attorneys are working on the legality of that refusal, but something even more disturbing is clearly at work here, and that is a staff member (Roger Briggs, in his October 6, 05 letter to the CSD) of the Regional Water Quality Control Board threatening this community with fines if the CSD refuses to violate the law (Measure B which is now law) and threatening fines if the community refuses to build a specific project in a specific place.

It is my understanding that the RWQCB cannot dictate where or how or what is built, only what the discharge numbers must be. And it’s hard to even begin to explain a staff officer resorting to extortion by demanding a duly elected Board break the law . . . or else.

This community has been lied to, misled, “spun” and bamboozled from day one on this project (See the RWQCB & CC’s staff report of 1998 – issued before the November 1998 CSD’s formation election. That information and those numbers were NEVER discussed or that report disclosed by the three “Solutions Group” members running for office, until well after the election, that is. And consider Coastal Commissioner Potter’s “bait and switch” comment. He was dead on the mark, even though he didn’t follow up on any of it, thereby failing the community and his responsibility as a commissioner.

In short, the people of this community have been faced with both false information and strong-arm tactics to force them to buy an unaffordable and unsustainable sewer plant whose site was driven by a hidden agenda (site it in the center of town to control its size and hence use that limit to control growth) , a plant with all kids of deferred costs, still hidden O&M costs, a plant that won’t cure salt-water intrusion, nor prevent importing state water – in short, the wrong type of plant in the wrong place for all the wrong reasons, strong-armed into place with false and misleading “bait & switch” information and incessant terror tactics – FINES!FINES!FINES!WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE IN THE STREETS LIKE DAWGS!!

(By way of one small example: The former CSD majority repeatedly and officially told the community that all alternatives had been examined and discarded as not working or being unaffordable. A few months ago, when I specifically asked former General Manager Bruce Buel during the presentation of the Cleath & Associates water report, if Ag Exchange had been examined and costed out, his answer was . . . No, it had not. That begs a question: If the CSD has clearly been lying about something that simple, what else have they been lying about? And can a community – a democracy – be served when those in power lie and mislead? And how valid is a vote – which is a form of a “contract” with the elected to tax themselves for a specific item – when the terms have been falsified?)

This community wants a sustainable wastewater project – no hidden deferred costs, no undisclosed O&M costs, no lies, no strong-armed extortion tactics – and we’re willing to move ahead to design such a project, put it before the community for a vote, then move ahead with all due speed.

But right now, egos, lies, bad management, personal vendettas, spite, anger and other human failings are just getting in the way. Right now, everyone involved needs to take a deep breath and remember, This project is not personal. Instead, it’s all about sound economics, sound land use planning, sound water management and sound engineering.

And so, we need your help in taking that deep breath and taking a look at the bigger picture.

Thank you,

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

this project is personal,

it affects everyones' finances and future.

No CSD or agency could ever totally say they've considered 'all' alternatives.

Ann, you know better than to misconstrue that.

There are limitless alternatives, to any project.

The CSD had numerous alternatives, and yes, they did in fact, not choose a potential lowest cost one.

Why do you keep inferring to that as something sinister?

The current board, by foregoing a SRF loan, may be in fact not pursuing the lowest cost option at this point.

And enough with the Solutions group dribble. I'm sorry you were apparently naive enough to vote for the CSD in '98. At least you had a definitive proposal with challengable numbers in front of you to examine.

That is not the case now.

Now who is misleading who??

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

I have trouble believing that either Abel or Sam would have sympathy for your "we screwed up when we voted 7, 5, 4 and 3 years ago to approve this project and we now regret those votes" letter.

While many people may have, indeed, changed their minds about whether the in town project would be good and whether the solutions group people are good to keep around, that doesn't mean that this new group and their plan is a better choice for the environment or our pocketbooks. Honestly, if the best argument you have is "we changed our minds", who is to say that in two or four years we won't have another recall to get rid of the current board because they gave up the low interest loan, chose to be fined and chose to pursue what they should have known was a pipe dream.

If you are going to fault the solutions group people for being too hopeful and not realisitic enough, why are you choosing to hitch your wagon to a horse that is running on hope and inexperience rather than on facts.

The fact that they fired Buel before having a temporary replacement with any experience in sewers, treatment plants and dealing with state agencies and their requirements shows they are unwise. Any reasonable GM and legal council would have read through the CSD contracts with the state such as the contract to borrow money for the TriW project that says that the money will be due back in Sacrament if any aspects of the projects are changed before making any changes recommendations.

It would appear that, having fired Buel and previous previous counsel and having hired new GM and counsel who were in over their heads, the stepped into a mess that they were not aware of.

However often Lisa may say that they've not recently fallen off of a turnip truck, it does look to the casual bystander (and pretty much anyone other than blind supporters of the current group) that they have, indeed, fallen off of some sort of produce truck.

Churadogs said...

Ah, but the CSD repeatedly DID say they had examined all options. Until they had to say, uh, no, they actually didn't, heh-heh.

As for Blakelsee & Maldonado getting involved, that's up to them.

As for "firing" Buel, he wasn't "fired," he was put on paid administrative leave and required to stick around so the new guy could pick his brain. Considering that Buel often reccommended courses of action to the board that the new board (and voters) were unhappy about, this course of action was prudent. (Some disagreed and felt that Bruce should have actually been fired) And the previous counsel wasn't fired either. He's now serving as "second chair," to the new guy. And we'll have to wait to see if the new GM and counsel are "in over their heads." or whether, since at least the GM's company has experinece in arriving in the middle of a civic disaster and setting things right, perhaps the Los Osos mess is nothing special to them -- been there, done that, wrote the book.

By the "low interest loan" do you mean the STATE REVOLVING FUND loan? As in REVOLVING , as in, given up FOR NOW, but can apply for it AGAIN?

Shark Inlet said...

You are right, we will have to wait to see if the new guys are in over their heads. Certainly at the rate the new GM is being paid, he should be able to do wonders.

Yes, the low interest loan (2.3%) is from the SRF and needs to be approved by the SWRCB. The SWRCB has indicated they will not approve a loan for a step-steg collectiton system for Los Osos because of the need to replace too many of the septic tanks. They've also indicated that they won't approve of a ponding system if the water will be used to recharge the aquifer. Presumably they may approve of such a loan if there were some sort of ag-exchange, but they likely won't pay for building any such ag-exchange system.

So, yes, we can apply for it again, but no, unless the new group changes their tune, they won't get a loan because their plans don't meet the demands of those who would need to sign off on the plan.

Yes, the CSD could go without a low interest loan, but to lose a 2.3% loan and borrow at a 5% (or more likely 6% or higher ... who knows, perhaps 5% will be the "low interest" rate in the near future) rate will raise our monthly bills horribly.

Shark Inlet said...

I just had a chance to "run the numbers".

Current plan: If we were to borrow $135M at 2.3% for 20 years the monthly bill to build the thing would be $140/month for each of 5000 households. (Presumably if more homes are built in the prohibition zone the montly bill per home would decrease.)

Hopeful plan of the new guys: The best case is that we could get a loan for $70M (times four years of 5% inflation in construction costs) plus $10M to design the plant, buy the property and guide the process through various state hoops. If this were the case we would need to borrow $95M. At a "low interest" rate of 3% this would be a monthly payment of $105/month just to build it. If we can't get another SRF loan and have to pay 5% interest (which would appear to be the lowest we can hope for) it would cost us $125/month each. 6% interest would net us $135/month.

Realistic version of the new guy's plan: five years at 7% inflation, an extra 20% additional costs because the plan they told us they had before the election may not meet state requirements necessary for permitting and 6% interest rate causes the "$70M" plant to cost us $183/month ... just to build. What if there are fines? What if we need to pay the state back for some work already done? Even if you view the previous board's choice to have the election after the start of construction as a mistake, it pales in comparrison to the mistakes this board appears to be making every time they meet.

Don't you see, Ann, why we are frightened? This new board has taken an expensive "sure thing" and rolled the dice, having bet on the long-odds outcome.

I will suggest again that anyone who voted against the recall should be forced into $205/month payments for their bills and anyone who voted in favor of the recall should have bills which are higher or lower, depending on the ultimate outcome of the new board's actions.

Would you take that deal, Ann?

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

Another important point about your letter is the premise that Measure B is the law. The new board ought to take whatever steps necessary to determine whether Measure B does not conflict with other state laws which would govern the situation. If B is legal, then it would appear that fines may not be in order. Even so, the SRF money may still be due back in Sacramento ... if the board stops construction or seems like they are likely to stop construction the State has the right ... some would even say the responsibility ... to ask for the money back.

I also find it ironic that Ann wrote: "But right now, egos, lies, bad management, personal vendettas, spite, anger and other human failings are just getting in the way. ... This project is not personal. Instead, it’s all about sound economics, sound land use planning, sound water management and sound engineering.

This is exactly what I feel. It seems like the anger and spite of those who supported the recall are causing them to not see that what they are planning is not sound economics or water management. Let's face facts, guys, it is not sound economics to spend more money than one needs to to achieve a goal. Perhaps moving the plant out of town is a good idea, but at what cost? Ann and some others like Chuck don't seem to mind that it will cost more per month to have an out of town plant. I would argue that raising the fees over the $200/month that the previous board had fixed in place is not sound economics.

Would you pay $50 for a $30 pair of shoes just because they are nicer looking? Some of us would, others would not. I don't think that they typical Los Osos resident who voted for the recall realized that the new board would take actions immediately that are likely to raise our bills. Would the recall have gone through had this new board been honest while campaigning? Would they have won had they told us that they would raise our bills to get the sewer out of town?

Anonymous said...

A Shark inlet? Like a cloaca maybe?? Somebody might think about getting their own blog to spew KoolAid from..."Ran some numbers" ooooh. Damn those dissenters...winning an election like that. PUNISH THEM NOW!
This anti democractic tone of the the Now Recalled and their true believers is as provocative as it is predictable. Ann, you have a lot of patience and a lot of fans. Keep representing. Los Osos people love you & wish the best for our new LOCSD. Democracy 1st.

Shark Inlet said...

Yo ... anonymous ...

If you think that my calculations are in error ("KoolAid"?), please show where there are any errors.

If you cannot give us a solid reason for thinking a new project will be cheaper, please don't mind if we ignore your rants.

By the way ... since when is asking questions "anti democratic"?

Shark Inlet said...

Kickmonkey,

I would suggest that Briggs didn't give "Pandora's group" many chances, the RWQCB gave Los Osos and the CSD many chances ... and now they say they want to go back to square one. No wonder he would be frustrated and no wonder they would consider such action worthy of fines.

Furthermore, considering I don't see other areas of Los Osos asking to be sewered, I don't see why we should build a more expensive plant than necessary, just to handle the excess demand you suggest. Perhaps if they were willing to kick in some money. On the other hand, I rather doubt that folks outside the prohibition zone would want to contribute because they are not required at this time to be sewered. Who would want a $200/month bill if they weren't required? Along those lines, the idea of getting Morro Bay to kick in some cash is similar folly.

Churadogs said...

Dear Inlet, I suggest you read Ron Crawford's lastest posting, an open letter to Roger Briggs, regarding the 1998 staff reports from both Coastal Commission and RWQCB on the Ponds of Avalon. And then go back and reread the reports themselves. Where were Briggs' fines and threats when the newly elected CSD -- reports in hand -- ignored them utterly and proceeded to go ahead?

And, Anonymous, as I noted in my previous post, I'll keep the comments section open for comments only so long as folks commenting remain civil. Cloacas won't qualify. Please. We can be snarkey with one another, but, please, let's not be snotty, or Mother Calhoul will have to spank. Thanks.