Pages

Saturday, March 25, 2006

Dang! I blinked and missed it!

I hate when that happens. The Tribune hurled a HUGE headline story (and an editorial brickbat) at the Los Osos CSD for not getting public documents out the door in a timely manner (same problem for 6 of 7 other cities checked as well, but that was another “unrelated” story), but when the CSD voted Thursday night to pick an engineering firm to update the Project Report (Translation: put together a sewer proposal for the voters to select), if it was covered, I must have blinked and missed it


Well, the CSD selected Ripley Pacific Company, after receiving proposals from three firms (Lombardo Associates, Inc, and Ripley were neck and neck; one preferred by the selection committee, the other preferred by the Wastewater Committee, but both highly praised, with ABG Wastewater Solutions, Inc. lauded for it’s “innovative” solutions [unspoken, but clear: It’s too late for innovative, 21st century solutions for this community. Such solutions could have been possibilities, but too many doors have been deliberately slammed shut at this point for the community to benefit from ABG’s ideas. Sad, but there you are.]


The target for Ripley Pacific is that vote-able plans will be completed sometime this summer, which means there’ll be a voter selection under Measure B, followed by the rubber hitting the road: a Prop. 218 type assessment vote so homeowners in the prohibition zone can put their money where their mouths are.


Major step forward in moving towards building a wastewater system and doggone, I didn’t see a mention of that in the Tribune. Like I said, I must have blinked. Dang.


Other News: On March 30, 7 pm. at the Community Center’s CSD meeting, Paul Hood of LAFCO is scheduled to be on hand to ‘splain how the dissolution process works. Right now, a LAFCO dissolution hearing is set for 9 a.m. Thursday, June 15 at the Board of Supervisors Chambers in SLOTown. That should be a really interesting meeting since the Dissolvers will – I presume – have to submit evidence of their claims and the CSD will have to submit evidence to counter said claims. Should be fun: Dueling claims and then it’ll be up to LAFCO to decide which claims have merit and then decide, Oh, What To Do Next.


More cliffhangers, i.e. Normal for Sewerville.


Good News: Starting April 3 -7 is Clean Up Week here in Sewerville. Check with the CSD office for info and/or at the Mission Disposal office on Sunset Blvd. Basically, you get lots of FREE TRASH REMOVAL, above and beyond your usual can fee – which means Spring Cleaning big time. Plus, for a modest fee, you can arrive to have big items picked up. This is way cool for all that stuff you can’t recycle or drop off at various thrift stores for a second go-round or can’t figure out how to get to the landfill yourself. Great yearly event, so be sure to let your neighbors know. Nothing like spring cleaning, even for us Dogpatch Denizens. Our streets may be potholed, and we may not have a sewer yet, but there’s no need to keep those junker car parts in the weeds any longer. Not when those wonderful extra FREE pick ups are available starting April 3rd.

17 comments:

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

I too am bummed about seeing nothing in the Trib about the CSD's decision to hire Ripley Pacific. I was hoping to get more information about that company. As a prohibition zone resident, I want to know WHO they are.

I spent about two hours online last night trying to find out stuff that they had done. They do not have a website, that I can find anyway, so I can't even see their own propaganda.

So far, here is what I could find:

The Metropolitan Water District of SoCal awarded an ISP grant to the Southern California Golf Association. The City of Coronado Municipal Golf Course was chosen as the test site and Ripley Pacific wrote a proposal to test the on-site feasibility of water recycling. It is unclear if they built the project or just wrote the proposal, as the proposal was all that I could find.

They attended a public workshop, 2-26-03, at the State Water Control Board Department of Health Services.

They are listed in the Yellow Pages.

They donated between $250 - $1,000 to the Water Resources Center Archives.

They are members of The WaterReuse Association, a non-profit association in Alexandria, Virginia.

At ucmercedplanning.net they can be found in FEIR vol.'s 1 and 3 with information they provided on water efficient landscaping by using non-potable water, innovative waste water technologies and water use reduction.

Ripley Pacific was to speak at Al Barrow's CASE town hall meeting (off of the CASE website), but I don't know it this occurred.

And aside from a 404, page not found, that's about it.

Ripley Pacific presented a 3-page RFP to the CSD. (Lombardo presented 27 pages and I found out a lot about them online.)

Slim pickin's....

Mike Green said...

Thanks Ann for the great update!
Its realy too bad more people don't read this blog (as far as I can tell).
Maybe we should make some bumperstickers, I'll chip in.
I quit being bummed about the Trivial a long time ago, I just hope their new owners shake things up a lot.
They have on many occasions printed stuff that has made me laugh so hard I was sure it had to be a spoof, but then reading further, it became evident that there was nobody awake at the switch, so to say, Take the last HUGH headline, FRONT PAGE!!! Heart surgery successs is normal in SLO---- GASP! that means heart surgery failure is normal too!
HUH?
And Thanks Sewertoons for the research. I'll check it out too!

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Thanx Mike, please do! And please post if you find anything out, there just has to be something out there better than what little I found! (Specifically and most importantly, their nuts and bolts approach to the treatment of sewage - what they have done before in a town like this one.)

Anonymous said...

If you go to the CASE website (Al Barrow, et al.) you can find a 2003 report outlining an alternative project for Los Osos, prepared by Dana Ripley.

An Insider

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

I've got to just about everywhere in that site and can't find the referenced article with Ripley's name on it....

Found a lot of other interesting stuff tho - so thanks Insider!

Churadogs said...

Re the RFP: If I'm not mistaken, Dana Ripley won't be designing anything. The RFP was simply to update the project report -- sort through the types of collection and treatment systems, compare and contrast, cost out, inclduing OM&R, then present the top two? three? to the community for comment and finally a choice vote. Sadly, what the recalled three did in pounding tons of money into the ground before the recall deliberately closed off some options to this community that could have been included into the mix. That's moot now. So Ripley will have to simply deal with what's left and see what comes up. Then, depending on what the community picks, it'll then go to an RFP for design, design/build or whatever.

What I find interesting, is it appears that Ripley's company's focus is on recycled water and managing water. If so, then clearly I suspect the Board picked them in order to solve the most important issue this community faces: WATER.

Well, we'll see.

Anonymous said...

The most important issue at the present moment in time is POLLUTION and the fines and CDO's!

Anonymous said...

Ann,

Once again you're mistaken, on all sorts of fronts. By starting construction, the CSD got money from the state. Guess what that money is being used for?

Irony of ironies, if the CSD had delayed construction, there would have been no money left!

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

I have trouble believing your outrage at the previous board "pounding tons of money into the ground" when you don't seem to care that it was the actions of both the previous board (for starting) and the current board (for stopping) that caused the money to be wasted. Furthermore, if you care so much about wasting money, why aren't you hootin mad about the fact that the current board has made choices which will raise our bills yet again.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Ripley may be updating the project, with what background I am not sure as a tiny, three page RFP doesn't give much confidence as to ability to deliver much information (as indicated by the Wastewater Committee's preference for Lombardo, and that troubling lack of relevant Google pages on Ripley), but having done that job, does he then decide on contractors as was done with the old CSD? Didn't MWH run the project and do some of the work, then contract out parts of the job to Monterey Mechanical and Barnard? I don't see Ripley, or anyone, replying on the RFP without expecting some chunk of it for themselves to build. The pay wasn't that big just to scope out the job.

Again I repeat ad nauseum, if the old CSD hadn't started the project there would have been a different hell to pay with the RWQCB and half of the community who was behind the old project. No one can predict the outcome of the election. It was so close it could have gone either way. Had it gone the other way, the old board would be struggling now with a spate of lawsuits cooked up because of the recall having gone down in defeat.

Which brings up my other ad nauseum comment, that this community is so divided, nothing will be built here if we are left to our own divisive devices. Of course the lawsuits are more likely to come from the Clark Valley Road people in this round...

Anonymous said...

On the CASE website, go to the middle column "Breaking News" then scroll down to the very bottom and you will find a link to a report prepared by Dana Ripley for CASE which discuss an alternative to the downtown site, facility, etc.

Insider

Churadogs said...

Publicworks said, "Once again you're mistaken, on all sorts of fronts. By starting construction, the CSD got money from the state."

Uh, if I'm not mistaken, digging commenced within hours of the CSD receiving the first chunk of SRF money, not before or because. ?Within the contract, they had 90 leeway to hold off on digging, they also had time to reconsider the "overbids" and etc. In other words, there were choices that could have been made BEFORE the recall that could very well have created a different outcome, and even if the recall were successful after all, would have lessened the financial "punishment" to the community. That the old CSD board did not consider those options speaks volumes to me about what they really thought of the community. It was their Medea Moment.

Anonymous said...

No Ann, you are mistaken.

Without starting construction - no money. Oh, yeah, the 90 days, nice try.

Yes there were choices, and as usual you assume all alternate choices would have reduced any financial "punishment" (embellishing again, Ann?). Ann simply doesn't know that, because she knows she can't re-write history.

The old CSD DID consider options, they chose not to pursue them (more embellishment by Ann).

Ann, can you tell me what the stock market is going to do next month?? Your incomparable knowledge of what WOULD occur is unparalleled. You only see outcomes that justify your views.

Let's see, did the current board think of the community when they stopped everything? Did they think that homeowners would get CDOs? Oh, that's write, the current board was naive - it's ok to be naive, right?

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Thank you Anonymous/insider. Found it!

Should anyone else like to look:
http://case-environmental.org/LOAltProjDesc.pdf

It looks like the version off of the Tribune website on the Ripley article today - but with an old cover... Recycling is good... right?

Churadogs said...

The community, in passing Measure B, stopped everything. The community had the option of voting down Measure B and/or, once it passed, repealing Measure B or putting another initiative to a vote by amending Measure B. The CSD had the option of breaking the law and ignoring Measure B or following the law and complying with Measure B and stopping Tri W, in compliance with Measure B.

Anonymous said...

Wrong again, Ann.

The CSD had numerous options. It could have asked for court interpretations of Measure B (given that there were two separate court opinions that it was not legal). In fact, it could have allowed a hearing to proceed to find out.

When you say 'breaking the law', that depends on what a law really means. They could have also immediately scheduled a vote for the Tri-W site in compliance with Measure B. They CHOSE not to.

Churadogs said...

More options. Thanks for adding those to the list.