Pages

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Oh, Poor Tormented Los Osos, Oh, The Inhumanity! The Inhumanity!

Ah, ya gotta love the November 27 Viewpoint in the Tribune, (“How Unprofessionalism is tormenting Los Osos,”) written by seven former Los Osos CSD directors (three of whom were recalled from that office, though the Tribune fails to mention that in their little blurb at the bottom.) The piece ends with an earnest caveat to the current CSD Board: “Dig a hole too deep, you’ll be unable to climb out.”


Ah, quel cri de Coeur caveat! But isn’t killing off and the burying the CSD in a deep, deep hole exactly what many of the Viewpoint writers have been working tirelessly to achieve all along? I mean, before the recall was even certified, one of the authors sent those now infamous secret e-mails to the RWQCB’s Roger Briggs begging him to “fine the CSD out of existence.” Then there were those ongoing lawsuits filed either by Taxpayers Watch or encouraged by Taxpayers Watch, all very costly for the cash-strapped CSD to defend.

Not to mention the disastrous decision by three of the Viewpoint authors to vote (while they were still CSD Board members) to go into court to block Measure B from getting on the ballot. That absolutely guaranteed the giant hole of bankruptcy right out of the box when the [new] CSD ate it big time settling that case rather than continue it and eventually loose even more money in a court mandated settlement that would have been even worse. (I’m not a lawyer and I don’t play one on TV but even I knew that California case law took a dim view of people attempting to squash citizen initiatives before elections. Talk about hole digging.)

And then when all of the above failed to kill off the object of their hatred, many of these same folks started up and supported efforts to demand LAFCO just dissolve the whole doggoned CSD altogether – baby AND bathwater – an effort that failed, by the way because the County didn’t want to get suck with any holes either. Then these folks supported an effort to elect a new Taxpayer Watch-supported Board majority slate, which the voters turned down, preferring to re-elect the hold-digging incumbents and one new guy, who hopefully will arrive on the Board with some fill dirt and maybe a back hoe?

Apparently hole digging and corpse burying is a whole lot harder than it looks. So, instead of issuing pious caveats about deep holes, maybe our Viewpoint authors should just send all the CSD Board members a nice vat of toadstool soup for Christmas?

On the other hand, the Viewpoint soundly supports, “The upcoming audits to be conducted by the state, the courts and the district’s own independent auditor [which] shall clarify for the community exactly what has transpired in Los Osos. The citizens deserve no less.”

Hear! Hear! And let’s hope those audits start at year zero and move forward and are all inclusive and thorough. Then we’ll be able to separate sheep from goats, mistakes from illegalities, muddlements from malice.

Then maybe everyone can stop digging holes with their own ox-gored little shovels and focus on bigger things: Like getting a sewer system we can all live with .

134 comments:

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

Your discussion of the Viewpoint of the former boardmembers seems to have completely ignored all the issues those former boardmembers raised. This is just like Lisa's reply to the Trib's editorial asking for accounting accountability.

Even if all the past boardmembers had shot their dogs in cold blood on national TV and are worth vilifying forevermore, they are still raising serious issues that need to be addressed.

Lisa's "no comment" comment and your "no comment" reply both seem to verify my gut feeling ... the former boardmembers are dead on right about what is and isn't allowed under CSD rules and that the actions they identify as "not right" (robbing Peter to pay Paul within five months of telling the RWQCB that they aren't allowed to raid one fund to pay for another need and borrowing money without public notice just to make bond and fire payments due in early Fall) must have happened.

If Lisa's LOCSD didn't do those things, she or you or someone should point it out. If Lisa's LOCSD did do those things but those things are legal and ethical, she or you or someone should point it out.

That the only replies are off topic is very very telling.

Anonymous said...

When the court unfreezes the remaining SRF funds, which were intended to pay sewer expenses, those funds will be repaid. Because that's why the funds were "raided" to pay for the low cost fire service the community chose over the high priced Pickens FD that was so spendy...like a QVC adict, Pickens never saw a piece of equipment he didn't want. He sold Gustafson hook line and sinker that the tate "mandandated" he have every gadget.
Let's not even talk about the ridiculous idea of a mechanic, what a waste that was...or yeah, and the bruch truck...stop me now, I wanna puke!

Anonymous said...

Ann,

You have entirely missed the ISSUES presented in the Viewpoint; and have instead attempted with your blog to divert attention from the ISSUES with meaningless opinion and speculation.

THE ISSUES are:

1. That the current board violated FEDERAL LAW by spending $1,475,000 in property tax and bond payment revenues on attorneys and unbudgeted consultants instead on the obligations they were collected for (Fire and emergency services, Bond debt payment).

2. Because the money was spent by the end of May, to make payment of it's obligations the CSD board secretly made the decision to BORROW, without proper public noticing or protocol, $760,000 from the Fire reserves and the Water reserves to pay for contracted fire and emergency services. Later in September, the board borrowed an additional $715,000 to make the bond payment; again without proper public noticing or protocol.

3. Los Osos taxpayers (YOU) are obligated to repay the $1,475,000 borrowed. How is this to be done? What is the source of revenues to repay these loans?

Ann, what was your response to these very serious ISSUES and violations of Federal law?......you attack the messenger with meaningless diatribe.

So Ann, what do you think of these ISSUES?

Regards, Richard LeGros

Anonymous said...

In the name of all that is sane, the citizens must call in an expert who has authority of knowledge to quell all this insanity so that the community can finally have an environmentally sound system that actually serves the people it is meant to serve!!! Please Los Osos, get an independent source with some real scientific authority! Spend the money, and get it right.

Anonymous said...

....and one more thing, get an expert that also knows the way around all these political/legal weasels who are soaking up the money and gaming the system at the expense of the people. Los Osos has not been served well by engineers, politicians or lawyers. You just need a sewerage system that in at one with the 21st century. The knowledge is out there, and the environmental issues are critical.

Thank you Ann for being a true citizen of your community. You have my respect.

Anonymous said...

Hi Anon above,

Please, what is your opinion on the ISSUES outlined in the Viewpoint?

Regards, Richard LeGros

Ron said...

Ann?

"... ate it big time?"

"... the object of their hatred?"

"... arrive on the Board with some fill dirt and maybe a back hoe?"

So damn funny.

What happened to all those golden shovels from the ground breaking "ceremony?" Get seven of those shovels, hand them to the seven "authors," point to the ditch, and say, "Start back-filling."

Seven people to write one piece? How's that work?

Pandora Nash-Karner: Guys, here's my piece. I'm going to attach your name to it.

Other six former directors: Sure. Why stop now? That's what you've been doing for the past eight years, anyway.

"... Tribune fails to mention that in their little blurb at the bottom."

It also fails to mention that six of the seven are former Solution Group members.

Quick memo to that whole minority (according to the last three elections) Taxpayers Watch segment: When it comes to the LOCSD, I strongly recommend you guys not ask any questions, or bring anything up that happened with that agency from 1998 - 2005. I hate to tell you how to run your "strategy," but, if I was in your shoes, and thank God I'm not, I'd desperately try to keep the focus on post-2005... if I were in your shoes.

"And let’s hope those audits start at year zero..." Hell yes. From January 1999, on. That would help "clarify for the community exactly what has transpired in Los Osos."

Anonymous said...

Richard, and other uncredible PAST board members...

You all have credibility problems... therefore noone can trust anything you say.

You keep harping on responding to the content of your article... I could care less what the content is other than for it's laugh factor.

It's like when Baghdad Bob came on the air during the Iraq invasion, or when Osama Bin Laden releases another tape... do we care what their content is? Either do I. Why?

Because they are crazy, lying lunatics... just like you.

Save your time and energy... noone is listening to you.

To Sharky... it does matter if they shot their dogs on national tv... (see example above).

You can't spend years lying and misleading... covering up facts, manipulating goverment process, ignoring the law, etc. and then say to the people of Los Osos... "Trust me."

You've got to be kidding.

The people of Los Osos have removed you from power... please go away.

Anonymous said...

Fucking Balls said... "the current board violated FEDERAL LAW"

My response: How does it feel to be on the other side? Like you used to like to say... If you think there has been a violation of the law take it to the proper authorities.

Speaking of that... why are you wasting your time writing a viewpoint in the paper... wouldn't the Tribune run a front page article if there was a violation of federal law?

I guess that goes back to your credibility problem. More lies. How can we believe anything you say? Why should anyone read anything you write?

Ron said...

Quick correction... I said six of the seven were former Solution Group members. Five of the seven were. Richard and Sylvia Smith -- a very nice lady that I used to buy my auto parts from (thank you, Sylvia. They worked great) -- were not.

1 mo' thing:

Quick Taxpayers Watch strategy memo II: I'm not too sure identifying yourselves as "former CSD Directors" is a good tact. I mean, think about it. Three of you were recalled. One quit mid-term, and another, Nash-Karner, served one term, and then quickly submitted a bid to the LOCSD (that she was instrumental in establishing) for $700,000 for public relations services, according to her husband, Gary Karner. At least that's what he said on the Dave Congalton show a couple of years back.

I don't think "former CSD Directors" is getting the respect you're reaching for.

Just trying to help.

Sewertoons said...

Ann, like so many people in this town, do not want to look at the issues, much less discuss them. They would rather deflect and misdirect attention away from the wrongdoing. It is painful to see your friends go down, and very painful to talk about I am sure. This must be the reason that you won't address these issues.

As frustrated as I am about this, I will have to wait for the audits to appear. Then it will become quite clear what damage the PRESENT board has done to Los Osos.

Oh, also Ann, there was some other group or person aside from TW who actually put up billboards with the three candidates names on them. This was not done by TW. You might want to mention that there were other, non-TW people who supported those three candidates as well.

It might also be noted that the hole-digging incumbents promised things that they have no possible way of delivering, as the County has the WWT project and these guys will have just as much say as to a WWTF as you or I will. We'll see if the COUNTY can deliver a WWTF for $154 a month. Meanwhile the voters have stayed asleep at the switch, never noticing that the $100 a month WWTF promised last election is nowhere on the horizon. Such is the sad cluelessness of Los Osos.

Anonymous said...

This needs to come out of the personal and move into the big picture. Los Osos must bring in an independent consultant with credentials to solve this urgent problem. If not, this will only continue to deteriorate into a loss for everyone.

Shark Inlet said...

Ron ...

You too avoid the issues Richard and others have raised.

To our anonymous friend of 9:28am ... it would seem that you are saying that you don't have to believe Richard and the others just because you don't trust them in general because they used to be boardmembers. Fine. However, please realize that their charges are pretty serious and that, if true, a crime has been committed by the current board. Maybe none of us knows the laws governing the CSD perfectly, but I do remember that the GM isn't allowed to take any actions without board approval (and for small things like buying copiers, the board gives that approval in advance but for big things like buying a backhoe or borrowing money or moving funds from one account to another). I also know that all board actions must be made after public notice and public comment (with one exception ... closed session items that relate to lawsuits, property matters and personnel matters) and that the process wasn't followed correctly.

Now, to all you who insist that we go back and revisit the site selection decision because the process wasn't followed correctly, are you going to remain consistent on that issue and ask this board come clean ... that they tell us exactly what they did do? Are you going to ask them to go back and do it over again, but correctly this time? Even if it costs us money?


The very fact that some folks are attempting to defend the board without full information about what did, in fact, occur, is very telling.

Anonymous said...

Hi All,

Yep, the Viewpoint has caused quite a stir. All of you that disliked the Viewpoint are completely avoiding the ISSUES by frantically spouting irrelevant topics, shaming and blaming others, etc. The silence from the viewpoint critics on the ISSUES is deafening.

Their is no way to defend the fact that illegal actions (felonies) were committed by this board. The upcoming State audit will make this very clear; and could lead to indictments, prosecution and conviction of current board members and key administrative staff.

So everyone, how exactly is the CSD board's spending your tax and bond dollars on costs other than what the funds were collected for a good thing? What this board has done has made it clear that they consider spending your tax money on attorneys and needless consultants as more important than spending the dedicated revenues for what they were collected for...to protect your life and property by paying contracted fire and emergency services; and to met our Bond obligations.

Regards, Richard LeGros

Anonymous said...

R LeGros,

Maybe you shouldn't be calling the current board felons, because when (an if) an audit ever happens, you may be right up there with them, along with the rest of your pals. Squeaky clean, I'm sure you aren't and weren't. You had a chance to REALLY do some good. Instead you screwed up...big time...and now all you can do is point fingers and whine alot.
What do you know about Federal laws? If anyone is or was in violation of any Federal Laws, don't you think they would be doing time right now? What you mean to say is, you "HOPE" they broke Federal Law....otherwise, why don't you just accept the fact that you are a loser and a has been, and take it like a man.

Anonymous said...

RLG, you are just a
Wimpy, wimpy wimpy! You should just shut up and take your defeat like a man. You lost....get it? No one cares what you think anymore . You had your chance and blew it, so buzz off!

Anonymous said...

"The upcoming State audit will make this very clear; and could lead to indictments, prosecution and conviction of current board members and key administrative staff."

You get 'em Richard!!! I for one would love to see the whole lot hauled off in orange jumpsuits. As a property owner they've robbed me blind, and continue, along with their whack-job supporters, to rob me each and every day. Here's hoping the state comes in and doles out some much needed justice to these incompetent losers.

Shark Inlet said...

To our two most recent anonymous posters.

You don't like Richard ... we get it. I'm willing to stipulate to your dislike in all future discussions.

Now that you don't have to waste time typing your opinion of Richard, maybe you have some time to actually address the issues raised.

Might I suggest that you start by finding out whether Richard's claims are accurate or not.

Find out whether money was indeed transferred around or not. A public information request at the CSD office will verify what he's told us. Once you've verified these actions have occurred, find out whether they can legally occur without board approval. Then find out whether the board can approve of such actions without public notice and input. At every step you will find out that Richard's story is solid ... even if you don't like him.

And ... what if Richard is telling the truth? What does this mean? It means that folks who are current LOCSD boardmembers have been doing stuff behind our back to make it appear that their house is in order.

This is simply not good government and it may be seriously illegal.

Churadogs said...

Inlet sez:"The very fact that some folks are attempting to defend the board without full information about what did, in fact, occur, is very telling."

Ann changed that slight to say: "The very fact that some folks are attempting to [ATTACK]the board without full information about what did, in fact, occur, is very telling."

amen, Shark, to both statements.
So, why not wait to see what the audits turn up and go from there? If Mr. Le Gros knows, for a fact, that federal laws have been broken, he needs to trot down to the federal prosecutors with the evidence. Ditto State Laws. Diddo for everyone out there commenting on this blog who knows, for a fact, that the CSD has violated any and all laws. A Viewpoint in the Tribune won't get miscreants put in jail. I'ts Orange suit, frog-walking time, Children. Get those files of evidence down to the gimlet-eyed Feds! Now!

Anonymous said...

Un-freaking believable. Some, want to put the current Board members in jail. After all of these years, this is the group chosen to be beheaded.
I will never accept the WWTP fee's proposed for Tri-W as being acceptable. Even at the $205 dollar a month figure when it was stopped.
It was obviously agenda driven, while side-stepping votes of approval.
This thing could have been back on track a long time ago, had it not been for the intervention of this group that has that agenda. And please dont give me the line that "at least it will give us a project to clean up our water the soonest." Cleaning up the water so far has not been a high priority. I see no reason to disturb that trend with unmanageable sewer bills.
Sincerely,M

Anonymous said...

Ann,

Hmmmm....back to the old "let's wait and see" ploy again. Whenever you do not want to address the issue, "wait and see" becomes your mantra. As for the other anti-viewpoint Anons, they rather play the "shame and blame" game in order to avoid the issues entirely.

Ann, all the information and description of board actions in the viewpoint is historical FACT described by the CSD's own DOCUMENTION. The County filed a lawsuit on this very issue.

FACT: the CSD collected about $1,600,000 in property taxes and bond assessment payments in April of 2005.

FACT: of the $1.6 million collected, $1,470,000 was restricted to be exclusively used to pay for the CDF fire fee ($759,000) and the 2001 bond assessment payment ($715,000).

FACT: the collected revenues were entirely deposited account 1012, Operations. No revenues were deposited in any other account.

FACT: By June 4, 2005, the CSD had less than $500,000 in account 1012. The CSD had spent the lion-share of the April tax proceeds on attorneys and unbudgeted consultant fees.

FACT: On June 5, 2005, the board secretly directed Dan Blesky to withdrawal $760,000 out of the LAIF account 1011, to be used to pay the CDF fire fee. This transfer is documented by a receipt from the LAIF Bank, which references the directive of the CSD board and the purpose of the withdrawal. Note: the LAIF account 1011 exclusively contained the CSD’s entire water department and fire Department RESERVES (totaling $816,000).

FACT: the CSD contacted the Bank of New York in early August of 2005 to inform them that the CSD did not have the bond payment revenue need to make the September 6, 2005 bond payment of $715,000.

FACT: in order to make the payment and avoid a default, the Bank allowed the CSD to use $716,000 of the $1,167,000 in the Bank of New York Wastewater Project Trust Fund, account #1017, with the understanding that the money was loaned for a period of not more than 1 year.

FACT: in both cases where the board decided to borrow money, the CSD board did not inform the public by agenizing (either in open or closed sessions) their intent to borrow money, as required by law. The public was not aware of or allowed to participate in the board’s decision to borrow money.

FACT: the board has committed the taxpayer (you) to repay $1,475,000 in loans even though they HAD the money in hand on April 16 to pay the CDF fire Fee and the bond payment. In essence, the board has forced the taxpayer (you) to pay the CDF fire fee and the bond payment TWICE.

Ann, all I have done is revealing to you what the new board has done. Their recent actions have violated federal law regarding the use of dedicated tax revenues; and have violated the public's right to be involved in the decisions the board makes on financial issues.

Don't believe me? Then get the documentation from the CSD. It will clearly describe that what I have written here to be the truth.

Regards, Richard LeGros

Anonymous said...

Richard, if the CSD's own documentation states what you wrote above, then this all happened on your watch. Weren't you a board member until October of 2005?

All of this happened before the recall election?

More credibility issues??

Problems with dates??

Problems with numbers??

And we are supposed to believe what you write??

This is the same kind of mistake you made regularly when you chaired the finance committee. It makes me wonder who is feeding you all of the finance information now. Come on... tell us it's Pandora pulling the puppet strings. That would just be a perfect ending to your downfall.

FACT: Nothing you wrote proves the law was broken... can you quote a FEDERAL code that forbids what you describe? I'm waiting.... tick tock...

Mike Green said...

Richard, A few questions if I may,
If the direction was "secret" how did you find out?
For reference, your post:
"FACT: On June 5, 2005, the board secretly directed Dan Blesky to withdrawal $760,000 out of the LAIF account 1011,"
If it was "secret" which implies hiding for wrongfull or damaging reasons, then that was one badly kept secret.
Maybe you ment " in closed session"?
That dose not in any way abrogate the seriousness of the action, but removing the implied negative spin with "secret"
would do your argument some help.
Can you direct me to some documentation about which federal (or State) law that may have been broken?
Again, your post for reference:
"FACT: in both cases where the board decided to borrow money, the CSD board did not inform the public by agendizing (either in open or closed sessions) their intent to borrow money, as required by law. The public was not aware of, or allowed to participate in the board’s decision to borrow money."

And although I'm amused and alarmed by your posts and you letters to the Triv.
I think you and TW are wasting far too much effort in the wrong direction.
The amount of money in question here is miniscule to the looming questions and issues about the CDO's and the 2010 drop dead decree.
Do you honestly think there will be a sewer by 2010?
Or are you a member of some cargo cult?
Thanks for posting, Mike Green

Shark Inlet said...

To our most recent friend .... Richard indeed has a problem with dates. Every occurrence of "2005" should be replaced with "2006" in his comment and it will be right.

To Ann ... do you really need an audit to know that these loans were not noticed and open for public discussion? Do you really need an audit to know what the CSD already admits ... that the money the County gave them for Fire services was pretty much completely gone months before the CSD was to pay CDF? They CSD has already admitted all these things Richard mentions.

The question is this ... is it okay? Is it legal or ethical to have done what the CSD admits to having done?


To our friend questioning the $205/month monthly payment as too high ... I wonder why you support the actions of the current board ... actions which have only raised our likely bills.


To Mike ... I am glad you are re-focusing us on the issue of whether the County can get something done by 2010. Certainly the CSD has no hope of doing so, but the County may have that possibility ... if they adopt TriW at the first chance. I actually suspect that the County will go slowly enough that they can convince people they've done their "due diligence" about exploring some other options because otherwise there will be an even larger shit-storm when they do choose TriW. Why TriW? Because it will still be cheaper and quicker than "out of town".

Oh ... by the way, even closed session items must be announced and these items were not ... hence the secret.

Mike Green said...

Shark thanks for the definition of secret
May we all live in interesting times.

Mike Green said...

Sharkey, you have way more confidence than I do about the county.
If the county is your hole card in this game...
I say start rebuilding that bridge ahead and stop the 2010 decree now before its too late.
We have a sort of shadow government going on with the doomed 45.
Making decisions that will cost far more than any fire truck bill.
Wake up at the switch!

Mike Green said...

To use an old Dogpatch Refugee term.
Ann Said:
"Then maybe everyone can stop digging holes with their own ox-gored little shovels and focus on bigger things: Like getting a sewer system we can all live with .
Word

Shark Inlet said...

Well Mike,

I actually don't have a lot of confidence in the County, but they have earned far far more confidence than the LOCSD has earned.

If your goal is to get something in place and running before 2010, you will be advocating that the County move forward with TriW immediately and without first considering other sites carefully.

If the RWQCB wants to push this, they can pretty much force us into TriW because we won't have enough time to study other options carefully enough to convince the bulk of our residents that TriW is best. Sort of ironic, really ... after all that effort and cost to "move the sewer no matter what it costs" that the costs of moving the sewer might just be too high for us to afford the new, better location.

I guess my biggest hope here is with the RWQCB ... that once the County takes over they may, indeed, reduce their pressure because of their faith that the County will do something reasonable.

Well, as Ann seems to like to say, we should wait and see and get more information before we make up our minds and that we shouldn't feel rushed into any decisions out of fear. But as Ann also seems to like to say, we need to pay attention because our train is heading toward imminent disaster and we may need to take quick action or else we're doomed.

Mike Green said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mike Green said...

Sharkey, with all your hopes and wishes one might think you belong to a CARGO CULT!
BWA HA HA HA
I realy should apologise for starting all this nonsense.
But I wont.

Shark Inlet said...

You are right, Mike.

I somehow believe that reason, logic, simple accounting common sense will fall from the sky and cause Los Osos citizens to finally agree on what is best for our town.

Maybe the LOCSD could spend some money and conduct an advisory poll so that the County could get some guidance about location and cost options they should consider. Simple questions like "if TriW were to run $250/month but the out of town Ripley idea were to run $300/month, which would you prefer?" Several hypothetical versions of this question with various prices and locations would allow us to see what the citizens really do want for a variety of possible futures.

Such information would be quite valuable because we wouldn't have to continually argue over the "our community rejected TriW already" versus "TriW was only rejected because we were promised a cheaper alternative" issue anymore.

Mike Green said...

With apologies to Shark Inlet.

A theater of the absurd:

I somehow believe that reason, logic, simple accounting common sense will fall from the sky and cause Los Osos citizens to finally agree on what is best for our town.

And they built their altar out of sticks and ribbons and called it the "Storey poles"

The populace were not amused, they chased the believers out of office!!
Hie thee! begone! But it was not to be!
Clutched like a case of the scurvey they be, unable to infect the real disease! the real disaster! the ship sinketh!
woe to those that believe without seeing!

Anonymous said...

Mr Green you may be wierd but you are not absurd

Anonymous said...

Hi All,

Damn I am tired tonight. All those 2005 dates in my last blog should read 2006.

Sharkinlet is correct when he wrote that the CSD itself does not deny that the events I described happened.

To Mike: I do not consider felony acts involving the mismanagement of $1,475,000 in tax revenues by the new board members as insigificant or amusing. I am sure you do not either.

We better hope there is an operational sewer by Jan 1, 2010 for the consequences if we don't will cause much suffering for Los Osos. I believe that the County will get a Prop 218 vote passed; and for construction to recommence on the Tri-W site by January-March of 2008. The monthly cost for the project with OM&R and payback of a new SRF loan will be around $250 per month. As for the payoff of the exisitng debt load of $40+ million, I cannot make a clear projection at this time.

Regards, Richard LeGros

Ron said...

Let's summarize:

Richard was recalled. He can't get dates right. A few months back he said the CSD office doors were about to close and never open again (that never happened), and then he put the cost of "bait and switchy" on the new board, ballooned that figure up to something ridiculous like $100 million, then he said his "honing" was adding $1 million a day to that figure.

Not exactly the Deep Throat of reliable sources, eh?

Look, I have nothing against Richard, he seems like a nice enough guy (I'd drink beer with him), and he leaves his name on his comments, which I admire, but Ann's exactly right, as usual. If his charges actually hold water, why is he dragging them into the comments section of a blog? If the alleged crimes are so egregious, shouldn't he be taking that to prosecutors, pronto? IF he has something.

Richard said:

"I believe that the County will get a Prop 218 vote passed; and for construction to recommence on the Tri-W site by January-March of 2008"

Richard, that projection is simply not based on anything. Not election results from the last three consecutive elections (heck, I'll even go back to 1997 and point to Measures D-97 and E-97). Not public opinion surveys... nothing backs that up. Nothing.

Coupla questions:

How is the multi-million dollar park-in-the-Tri-W-sewer-plant going to get funded in your little scenario?

And how is the county going to get around the "part of the community pays for park, entire community benefits from park" thing (that is if you consider a picnic area in a sewer plant a benefit) IF they go with Tri-W (for really no reason whatsoever other than the fact that you, Pandora and a vocal, string-pulling handful of others really, really, really, really, really, really want a sewer-park there, for reasons unknown)?

"I cannot make a clear projection at this time."

At this time?

C-y'all tomorrow.

Anonymous said...

Ron,

Stop stalling with your "shame and blame" game and meaningless questions over meaningless issues.

Comment on the ISSUES.

The ISSUEs here were clearly presented in the Viewpoint about the current CSD board misuse of tax and bond revenues and their subsequent "borrowing" of $1,475,000 without the involement of the public.

To date,you, Ann, and other Anons have failed to give coherent responses regarding these issues.

Regards, Richard LeGros

Anonymous said...

A few months back I asked you all what authority the old board had to "mass excavate" (there's a difference from the scraping and tree removal that happened in August)at Tri-W? I got no answer...does anyone else remember Bruce put his home up as colateral for the Insco/Dico $225,065 surity bond for restoration of Tri-W, Broderson, and the So. Bay well sites. Hello, does anyone else remember this? Did the Trib report it?
Sept. 12, 2005, the last time the recalled board members sat as directors, Stan was leaving to bury his mom the next day and Lisa couldn't be at the Monday morning Sea Pines meeting. Remember? A Special Meeting, to approve the indemnifying of the District to the bond (the premium was under $5,000)...well, Julie "torpedoed" that bond as soon as she left the meeting; calling Insco/Dico Insurance Co. and informing them that Tri-W was indeed ESHA and under litigation, not to mention the pending recall election and Measure B, just a few "environmental issues" Bruce had overlooked telling the insurance agent. Insco/Dico's agent "Googled" Los Osos and learned all she needed to know. And poof! No bond from them!
The next day Bruce went to work finding another bonding company, he found that Monterey Mechanical would help out, they posted their equipment as colateral, but NEVER got authority to indemnify the district to the tune of $225,065...NEVER! the board never got a change order from Monterey Mechanical to approve either.
I don't know if it broke any federal laws, but if the County ever tries to excerise that bond to "restore" Tri-W, forget it, it ain't worth the paper it's written on. ("Restore" is not really what it was intended to do, it was just to secure the site, make it safe again, re-grade so no one would get hurt or water runoff wouldn't pour off the site to the streets or other's properoty, it never meant "restore". You couldn't restore one acre of it for that price, that soil is so ruined, the habitat isn't even coming back. What a shame, had they stopped at the tree removal and grubbing, Tri-W's ESHA might have been restorable, no more, it's developable...Pandora's park could go there now, seasonal lakes and all.
Basically, the LOCSD recieved it grading permit under fraudulent circumstances, and no one is investigating/reporting it. So, Richard Le Gros, get a job, stop blogging, no one is listening to you, you're a recalled Director, you 're an embarrassment -- swearing on TV 3x a day for a few weeks didn't help ya. Which by the way, those gal's Julie and Lisa have more balls than you ever had...they stopped your run away train that had no end in price and never made sense, and as Ron reminds us all over and over, it never had community support in the first place.

Shark Inlet said...

To our most recent anonymous ...

First off, you sound a lot like Julie. The comments she's made here and in Ron's blog have a similar style.

Second, it appears that you are saying "Richard did shifty stuff too". Let me point out that even if you are correct, it doesn't give the current board the right to do what they did.

Even so, let's talk about the bond a bit. Perhaps Richard can chime in here as well. You seem to be saying that Monterey agreed to help out (with collateral) but that the board didn't formally vote to approve the new bond from a new company in any way.

Shark Inlet said...

Let's summarize:

Ron has a problem with pretty much everything the previous boards have done. He also publicly proclaimed that the Ripley plan would cost us less than TriW but has refused to comment on an analysis which shows otherwise. Hardly one to comment fairly.

Richard points out that a County 218 vote to start TriW will likely pass. Ron whines "there's no data". There is a lot of data ... the recent ballot of residents where many claim TriW was on the ballot was pretty even. Property owners tend to be more in favor of TriW than residents. If Property owners are those who cast votes in a 218 election, it will likely pass. It is also fair to say that when the CSD was formed and for the next few elections following that the candidates who supported the conceptual plan of a park at TriW won overwhelmingly. Nuff said.

If the SWRCB offers another SRF loan to the County for a TriW development which doesn't allow for landscaping and park expenses, that small piece can be paid for with another loan from another source. Hell, I would even bet that the SWRCB won't be able to fund the entire TriW project costs the next time we ask for funds ... it is likely that they won't have enough on hand to cover our needs. It won't be an issue.

Now that I've addressed a few of the issues you've raised, Ron, let me ask you a question ... there appears to have been little of value in your comments ... did you make them just to take swipes at Richard?

Anonymous said...

To the our most recent Anon,

1. You are mistaken. The CSD board had given Bruce Buel Bruce prior authority to secure all bonds required on behalf of the district for the Project; Buel need not come back to the board for approval as he already had the power to enter into any bond he deemed prudent. Also, no laws were broken - EVER!

2. Julie may not realize it, but she personally interfered with contractual matters (regarding the bonds) without the approval of the board; hence she may experience civil prosecution by the contractors.

3. It is the CSD, not the County that need exercise the bond in order to restore the Tri-W site. Additionally, the Tri-W site clearing was allowed under the CDP as its disturbance was mitigated by preserving 1/2 of Broderson and restoration of the remainder. If the CSD tries to sell Tri-W, they will have to restore it first. Also, Tri-W used to be plowed farmland....and "recovered" over the 40 years it was fallow.

4. As for your not liking me, I'll live. Also, if "no one is listening to me", why did you bother to respond?

5. Your argument that the new board is justified in committing felonies because you wrongly believe the old board did sound like a child's whine of "...but MOM! ALL the kids are doing it!"

6. Again, your avoiding the ISSUES of the current board's misuse of dedicated tax and bond revenues and their subsequent "borrowing" of $1,475,000 to pay CSD debt, all done without proper agenizing or public review.



Regards, Richard LeGros

PS. Sharkinlet: The RWQCB will fund the park elements as the CCC made it a mandatory part of the Project and the CDP (hence the elements may be funded through the SRF loan)

Anonymous said...

"Most recent Anon" here again, I may sound like Julie because she told me the story, and showed me the documents to back it up...and LeGros you are completely off the mark. The resolution allowing the Insco/Dico bond is specific to
Insco/Dico. And it is NOT for the CSD to excersize, it's for the County, should the project end up in their hands, they ordered it before issuing the grading permit. No wonder you were recalled, you don't even know what you were voting for. Why did Buel put his home up? Isn't that above and beyond the call of duty?
As for contractual intereference, let's call the Mom's out...what do you think your and others calling and messing with the SRF loan was? Contractural intereference of the worst kind.
Forty years of fallow hay farm? It won't be ESHA again for forty years? What? That's bull, ESHA is harty, it comes back fast (in the scheme of things) and that land is f'd up because the clay has been turned to the top, not just the top sopil over turned as in hay production. Are you a farmer too, Richard? Wrong again, if the CSD seel sTri-W they need to sell it's mitigation along with it...ever heard of real estate disclosures, we all know they have to disclose even the most obsurd risks, and litigation is another likely and necessary to disclose, because whoever buys it is buying a lawsuit from Taxpayer's Watch (you).
As for the current board, did you want them not to pay the fire dept.? I think it is necessary to keep them well fed and paid...no matter what it takes, and if you need some sort of board ratification of the action, ask for it, maybe they'll do it for you?
And you are WRONG that "The RWQCB will fund the park elements as the CCC made it a mandatory part of the Project and the CDP (hence the elements may be funded through the SRF loan)" First of all the RWQCB doesn't "fund" they just regulate. It's the SWRCB that is charge fo the SRF loans. And as for the CCC"s mandate, HA! The LOCSD asked for it to be a condidtion of approval. The CCC asked that Tri-W be restored to ESHA after the wastewater facility was built, the old board, even before you, begged that it be parklike, but had no funding for it when they went to the LCP amendment...that's why it was "bait and switchy" at the Substantial Issue hearing, Potter and others thought they were approving a park, and they weren't, because it had no funding, remember Pandora and Rose talked about "volunteers", "chips" from Chip'n Days on the dog park, and "trees planted in HONOR of loved ones", instead, as a condition of approval from the COUNTY, not the CCC,all the landscape had to be added to the price.
I'm not gonna waste my time, I won't be back on this blog for a while. the story according to Richard LeGros it's clear he hasn't read the Conditions of Approval in a long time, or ever.

Anonymous said...

Hi Anon above,

Sorry, but you are mistaken on all points of your blog (other than I meant the SWRCB issuing the SRF, not the RWQCB).

To your comment of "As for the current board, did you want them not to pay the fire dept.? I think it is necessary to keep them well fed and paid...no matter what it takes...."
…….I respond that I expect the CSD to use the DEDICATED PROPERTY TAXES legally obligated to pay the fire fee and not have to borrow $760,000 to pay said fee. As a tax payer, I am upset that I have paid the CSD TWICE on the CDF fee; once at tax time and again when we have to repay the $760,000 borrowed! Quite frankly, the CSD board placed paying of attorneys and unbudgeted consultants above protecting our selves and our homes by not paying the CDF fees on time or with the designated funds.

From your deafening silence on the new board’s actions of misuse the tax and bond revenues and the illegal loans, I can tell that you have nothing to defend their actions and concur that they have behaved inappropriately.

Regards, Richard LeGros

Anonymous said...

Imagine if OJ Simpson got an evening talk show and his sole topic was "Guily murderers go free"...

Would you watch it?

Would he have any credibility?

Does it matter what information was relayed?

Richard... you are OJ Simpson... and you have murdered Los Osos.

You have no credibility.

Anonymous said...

Hi Anon above,

I will survive your silly taunts.

Your avoiding the ISSUES of the current board's misuse of dedicated tax and bond revenues and their subsequent "borrowing" of $1,475,000 to pay CSD debt, all done without proper agenizing or public review.

From your silence I assume that we agree that their actions are inexcusable.

Regards, Richard LeGros

Anonymous said...

Richard, please, back away from the computer and go away and let this town handle it's problems.
You constantly have to correct simple errors in previous postings. If you want to achieve credibility, please be correct.
Out of curiosity, why are you so fixated on this subject?
Sincerely, M

Anonymous said...

M
This town can't fix it's problems. Never could, and never will. Never.

Now, does anyone remember during the LAFCO hearings the infamous "it's a typo" remark from Schicker when the supervisors voiced their concerns over agendizing the sale of Tri-W? "It's a typo" meaning it wasn't supposed to be on the agenda,(according to Schicker) only to reappear the next week and each week thereafter. And then Tacker admits the sale is to pay for bankruptcy costs. Was this woman caught in a lie or what! And people talk about Richard's credibility on this blog. See you all in court on Thursday.

Anonymous said...

Hi M,

Why do you refuse to answer the ISSUES raised in the Viewpoint?
Instead you are fixated on belittling me personally (which I find very funny)

So, tell me exactly your opinion on the current boards actions regarding the decicated tax and bond revenues and $1,475,000 in borrowed money

Regards, Richard LeGros

Mike Green said...

Richard, am I right in understanding that in your opinion there have been federal laws broken?
Again I ask, can you direct me to the proper documentation that would support your claim, specificaly, the statutes themselves, I AM ignorant after all.
Thank you for your time as usual.

Mike Green

Anonymous said...

I'm back, I can't stand it Richard, are you saying hat all I posted in the 1:01pm post is bull? You were on the Parks and Rec. Committee, you even chaired it, didn't you ask people to donate their live Christmas Trees, because the sewer didn't have trees in the budget....until the park became a condidtion of approval. OK, Richie, if you're so smart on the sewer and what it was or wasn't tell us all right now, what color was the roof before the CCC got to it and said "No Way!" You're the architecht, you read plans, what color was the roof of the plant for all those of you in Cabrillo Estates (who don't pay and will live with the mess) to look down upon?

Anonymous said...

Gad zukes Julie....calm down!

Yes, your 1;01 post is "bull" (your term, not mine); as is your
5:38 post too

Regards, Richard LeGros

PS: What do you think about the ISSUES raised in the Viewpoint regarding your and the board's misuse of tax and bond revenues for expenses other than what they were legally obigated for; and your and the board's subsequent imporper borrowing of $1,475,000?

Anonymous said...

Hi Sharkinlet,

Can you please tell me the process for inserting links into blog posts? Mike Green wants the penal code sections and other documents (which I have) verifying the seriousness of my posts.

Thanks, Richard LeGros

Shark Inlet said...

Richard,

See the blogger How do I make a link to another webpage? helpfile.

In particular, see the portion entitled "Here's an example scenario".

Hope this helps

FBLeG said...

For those of you that have been reading this blog know that I changed my screen name to accommodate a request by Spectator and I agreed because at that time we had been pleasantly blogging unmolested by RLG's belligerent postings. Now, he's back, unfortunately. It got me thinking about some of his history on this blog.

At first, I thought RLG was training to be an accountant post CSD ouster because we were being constantly inundated with his guesstimates as to the cost of TriW and Ripley. It seemed to me that this might be a good exercise for one aspiring to be an accountant or a mortgage broker. As various bloggers commented on and criticized his postings, his repartee was to ask his captive audience to explain what was wrong with HIS calculations. The argument - if you can't explain what wrong with MY numbers, MY numbers must be right. If you dared an approving post with regard to the Ripley plan, you would a receive, in response, a punch in the midriff RLG style - which means you would be subjected to a long rant in all CAPS with numbers proving beyond a shadow of a doubt (at least in the manifestation of sewerville that exists in RLG's head) that the Ripley plan was going to be more expensive than TriW.

Then he disappeared - I kind of wondered what had happened to him and changed my screen name at spectator's request.

Given the recent RLG activity on this blog, I'm guessing RLG's interest in accounting soon gave way to an insatiable desire to become the barrister of LO, maybe solicitor-general for the tiny unsewered hamlet known as LO. Now we are being subjected to postings of RLG that once again ask this captive audience to address the ISSUES. For the manifestation of sewerville that lives in RLG's head, I'm sure the ISSUES are THE ISSUES. Unfortunately, some of us, denied access to that phantasmagoria that is RLG's sewerville, see the ISSUES as HIS ISSUES. Let's face it, RLG has some ISSUES, but I see an eerie pattern returning where somehow RLG thinks once again that this blog is compelled to serve as a kind of psychologic intervention to address HIS ISSUES. I would think that a recalled board member would find removal from office a humbling experience and realize that there are additional ISSUES that folks want discussed and debated. Apparently RLG still does not realize this. In fact, public exhibitions of megalomania by RLG contributed to his ouster - he still doesn't get it.

Now, I will quickly address RLG's ISSUES. I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one when my friends and I get together for an immersive Saturday afternoon of Dungeons & Dragons(TM). Unfortunately, I cannot unsheathe my vorpal blade and behead the 9 headed hydra that is RLG's ISSUES in one powerful stroke. Instead, I shield myself from the razor talons of the hydra with the impenetrable barrier that is my legal ignorance - behold!

Since no one can argue with the fact that the LOCSD is surrounded by legal counsel, I would find it extremely unlikely that their actions clearly and maliciously violated some legal statute. Maybe they are in a gray area legally - or maybe they acted entirely within the law. I think I'll let the attorneys work this one out, and move onto something else - like my bed, it's getting late.

Shark Inlet said...

So I guess you are saying that because there are no prosecutors (that you know of) investigating the situation Richard describes (and the Trib reported and the CSD doesn't deny) that these actions weren't illegal ... or that if they were, they weren't malicious.

Hmmmm ... maybe if we wait we'll see if these things become an issue.

To me it seems pretty clear that the board took action without allowing public input in a situation where they are required to do so and that if they acted like a "friend" you trust to drop off your rent money who spends it instead then asks you for more so that he can pay your rent for you.

Anonymous said...

Fbleg,

You’re not a very good psychiatrist so keep your day job.

You raise an interesting point about the board's legal council. What exactly was legal council's advice on these issues? Did legal council say go ahead and use the legally obligated tax and bond revenues for other purposes? If they did, they advised the board to violate section 6503.1. (a) of the California Government Code. and sections 424 and 425 of the California Penal Code. Did legal council advise the board that they could borrow money without the involvement of the public, and then they advised the board to violate the California Constitution / Propositions 13 and 218. Also, what was the advice of the Interim General Manager?

The ISSUES about our local CSD is ALL our issues, not just mine.

Regards, Richard "FB" LeGros

Anonymous said...

Fleg,

Oh, I forgot to mention that these ISSUES are the sames ISSUES of the County of San uis Obispo lawsuit gainst the LOCSD. As a matter of fact, the County and CSD are in court today down in Santa Barbara regarding that lawsuit.

Regards, Richard LeGros

Churadogs said...

Richard L.G. sez:"1. You are mistaken. The CSD board had given Bruce Buel Bruce prior authority to secure all bonds required on behalf of the district for the Project; Buel need not come back to the board for approval as he already had the power to enter into any bond he deemed prudent. Also, no laws were broken - EVER!"

a quick question: If I understood correctly, Buel had authorization to spend up to $5,000 without getting board approval. That Inso/dico bond deal went over $5,000 once they got the full information (from Julie) as to the ESHA status, a recall looming, & etc, in other words, "full disclosure," which they weren't given when they first issued that policy, and there was a critical deadline looming to start pounding gazillions into the ground hence he didn't have time to properly agendize a regular board meeting, wherein all this would have to be discussed & voted on & etc. and there was no time . . . That's why he went for all this wierdness of house bonding and having, I believe, Monterey mechanical fill in the overage themselves & etc. It was that $5,000 limit that nearly sunk the whole deal.

Anonymous sez:"Since no one can argue with the fact that the LOCSD is surrounded by legal counsel, I would find it extremely unlikely that their actions clearly and maliciously violated some legal statute. Maybe they are in a gray area legally - or maybe they acted entirely within the law. I think I'll let the attorneys work this one out, and move onto something else - like my bed, it's getting late."

Amen. Also, please keep in mind that there's Criminal, Civil and "political" divisions to what elected officials can do. Often "illegalities" that we call "illegal" can only be righted by a civil lawsuit, which rarely happens. "criminal" matters are often ignored when the DA "declines to prosecute," and he does that for several reasons: political reasons (cronies) or evidence is weak or the crime is minor enough not to be worth the time, money & effort. Then there's "political" boo-boos that have to be solved by voting people out of office. So if someone claims that some Board somewhere has violated the law, then everyone needs to ask for evidence and whether it's criminal or civil and have the proper authorities been notified? & etc.

Anonymous said...

Ann,

1.Bruce was given authority by the board to conduct the bonding issues as he deemed prudent. He did so. This has nothing to do with the $5,000 cap on his hiring of consultants.

2. I will shortly post the secti0ns of the law which the ISSUES pertain. The Government Code, Special Distict Code, and the Penal Code are very specific in regards to how tax and bond revenue must be spent.... and spending them on attorneys and consultants is not one of them.

3. I am sure that these ISSUES will be raised by the State in the upcoming audit. The evidence is specific and undeniable.

4. Meanwhile, please address the ISSUES. Answer this; IF I am correct, what are your thoughts about the board's actions.

Regards, Richard LeGros

Shark Inlet said...

I get the feeling that the recall board (you know, the one with Lisa as board president) was just too quick to trust the GM and attorneys they had working for them while the GM and attorneys were just too quick to tell the board what they thought the board wanted to hear.

At best it would seem that the board asked Blesky and Biggs whether they could use the April check from the County to pay for the services of ... um ... Blesky and Biggs and Ripley and the rest ... and that Biggs and Blesky said something like "sure, no problem." In other words, the best case scenario here is that we can now sue WillDan and BWS for malpractice.

The worse case scenario is that all boardmembers (who participated ... where has Fouche been recently?) willingly worked with Biggs and Blesky to do something they all knew was wrong.

Essentially something smells rotten here. I am saddened by Ann's seeming unwillingness to tackle these issues head on with a scathing criticism of the board ... after all, had Gordon sneezed without saying "excuse me" Ann would have been up in arms about a lack of civility. The double standard is very very telling ... but not surprising to those of us who have been following this nightmare.


Thank goodness that Sparks was elected. Even if he's outvoted every single time, the board can no longer get away with trying to do something illegal because now there will at least be a witness.

Anonymous said...

You guys keep complaining about us not responding to your question and trying to change the subject...

When we start to discuss the logic behind this statement:

"The LAFCO bill is a contractual disagreement," Taxpayer Watch's Hensley said. "With or without Blakeslee's bill, they said they would have recommended against dissolution.

"Why should we pay for something that could have been decided on day one?"


Can you discuss it without mentioning the CSD's financial troubles?

Anonymous said...

Hi Anon Above,

I recommend you talk to LAFCO or Gordon Hensly about their disagreement as I know nothing about the topic.

Regards, Richard LeGros

Anonymous said...

I have watched and attended the meetings since 2001. Le Gros put up quite an expensive campaingn. He won. From day 1 it was obvious he did not care about Los Osos homeowners. Itwas his agenda. It was all about Le Gros. He did not do research about what was going on in our community and often stammered and could not answer questions directed to him concerning information he was supposed to be the informed on . Le Gros was a SHAM a self seving one at that at the expense of Los Osos citizens. Why wont he just crawl into a small closet in hes huge monster home and sroke his F---balls and stick his thumb in that currupt lying mouth

Anonymous said...

I have been gone for awhile but have an urge to chime in here. Let's ask ourselves this: Why is it that, even though we need a sewer and the current board hasn't delivered one, in fact we are in bankruptcy court, etc. etc. ...we still can't come together? People still fight the old board, the new board, the county, whomever. I think it is because it has not hit us (at least those of us without CDOs) square in the face yet. Are we being directly charged? Not that I know of. I didn't pre-pay because the situation was so volatile. Am I getting a monthly $300 bill? No. Has this hit me in the pocketbook in a significant way? No. Beyond that, am I okay with my septic tank(s)? Yes. Do I want my yards and streets torn up? No. In closing I would say that there are quite a few homeowners in the PZ that think that there is still hope for something better, especially with the county on board. I know I think that just letting everyone get on with it would be more productive that bantering about who does/does not have balls. And honestly I don't think most people care about the accounting. I know I don't and most of my neighbors don't. In fact, they want everyone to just shut up and let the county do what they will. I also think that the county will be open to alternatives, if they are reasonable. I really do. Much of the division, in my opinion, boils down to beliefs. And each of us will believe what we want to believe, in general. You can talk til you're blue in the face about "issues" and "accounting" and what's "illegal" and IT WON'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE!

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:48:
Let me guess. You're a high school drop out. You don't believe Los Osos needs a sewer. And you rent. Am I close?

Anonymous said...

In response to " let me guess. you're a high school drop out. you don't believe Los Osos needs a sewer. And you rent. Am I close?" well, well, There in lies the corruption. You obviously think you are a superior person because you don't rent but own. (maybe got a inheritance or education support,) You jump to conclusions about how people perceive the situation according to their education. I know we need to treat our waste water and it needs to be done in a sustainable way , and not in the center of our town with huge wave walls of cement inviting graffidiots just like occurs now in the new skate park ,costing tax payers thousands of dollars and slumming our community. It makes no difference if I graduated from H.S. or own here. I am involved in the quality of life here. I live here. I am a person living here with concern for my quality of life, and my neighbors. And I am not for an imperialistic gentrification of our town. You obviously are for economic cleansing of our community. Maybe you should move to some sterile place where everyone is interviewed on thier education and economic situation and then you can live your boring life in a contained environmenmt.

Anonymous said...

"From day 1 it was obvious he did not care about Los Osos homeowners. Itwas his agenda. It was all about Le Gros."

One of the most obvious examples of this is when the CDF, shortly after taking over the fire department, came to the CSD and asked them to update the fee schedule it used to inspect new developments in Los Osos. It seemed the fees the old fire department used were not sufficient to cover the costs to provide the service. The CDF was not asking to make a profit for these services, just to cover the expense of providing it... and this was right after we saved a bunch of money by contracting with them.

Someone in the audience asked what the fiscal impact of this fee increase would be and we were assured it would only affect fees charged to developers who were building new projects in Los Osos... and it would actually help the community save money by passing on the expenses of these developments to those resposible, instead of passing them onto every homeowner in Los Osos.

After asking exactly zero questions, Richard LeGros voted no.

A clear signal that he cared more about his developer friends and colleagues than he did the people of Los Osos.

Whoever the anon was above... you hit the nail right on the head.

Anonymous said...

Repetition is Good .. Bruce Buel Hired MWH to Design los Osos Sewer plant . Bruce Buel did this before he was even sworn in as a general manager, he was not empowered to do this. Then with only one design on the tray MWH accepted bids 50% over estimates 143.000,000 YEAH!!Win win on our backs and bucks. The previoous board + "stroke his balls" Le Gros were all for this. WE got Pandoras Box and Vampires!! SAVE OUR TOWN

Anonymous said...

Shark, you said something about the majority of property owners in the prohibition zone voted to essentially move forward with Tri-W. I'm curious how you ascertained that.
Sincerely M.

Shark Inlet said...

Well, residents voted pretty much 50-50 on the recall.

A majority of the renters in the district who cast ballots voted for the recall because they figured they could either delay payments or move if the payments got too high.

A majority of the property owners who happen to be residents must then have wanted TriW.

Property owners who cannot build without a sewer in place preferred TriW to the "plan" that the other candidates had ... or didn't have.

I guess that it all comes down to this ... if the majority of renters preferred TriW and the majority of property owners preferred the recall we've got a whole lot of people who are not voting their economic interests. I would then also have to hand it to the renters for voting altruistically for the betterment of their community while the property owners should be scolded for raising the bills of their neighbors.

Mike Green said...

Richard, you quoted the following:

6503.1. (a) of the California Government Code. and sections 424 and 425 of the California Penal Code.

I went to the website below, and I couldn't find your reference.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery
Its a listing of all the California Government codes.
I'm sure I'm just looking in the wrong place, you don't need to hyperlink, just copy and paste in a reply, I can take it from there, Thanks.

Anonymous said...

"A majority of the renters in the district who cast ballots voted for the recall..."

And how do you know this??

"...because they figured they could either delay payments or move if the payments got too high."

You are an idiot!

"A majority of the property owners who happen to be residents must then have wanted TriW."

This is the worst logic I have ever heard... in order for the argument to be true, the premis must be true... and there is nothing supporting the premis.

"Property owners who cannot build without a sewer in place preferred TriW to the "plan" that the other candidates had ... or didn't have."

Ditto

"I guess that it all comes down to this ... if the majority of renters preferred TriW and the majority of property owners preferred the recall we've got a whole lot of people who are not voting their economic interests."

Says who?? Richard? See "credibility" above.

Anonymous said...

Economic Interests? OH OH MY MY MY MY
I am a home owner and I think very rationally and to suggest that the majority of home owners would support a wastewater plant in that Tri W
location is totally LIES MISCONCEPTION
CORRUPTION No One Except your little maggot nest wants that.HENSLEY>BUEL PANDORA< LE GROS GUSTAFSON et al No one wants a energy wasting outdated plant when we can hAVE A SUSTAINABLE system saving us millioms of dollars not in the middle of town. We do not want to destroy the center of our town ... and we do not want to dextroy the corridor to Montano de Oro















w

Anonymous said...

If anyone thinks that Joyce Albright is interested in cleaning up the environment, they should take a look at her rental on Henrietta Ave. What a trashy dump! And I have to look at it everyday. She may be a property owner but she is seriously ABSENTEE landlord. That place of hers gives me the creeps.

Anonymous said...

Fucking Balls said... "the current board violated FEDERAL LAW"

Then said... "board to violate section 6503.1. (a) of the California Government Code. and sections 424 and 425 of the California Penal Code"

I am still waiting for the FEDERAL law that was violated?

Is it possible you are talking out your ass and don't know what law, if any was violated?

Do you know the difference between federal and state law?

What should I expect from someone with your level of credibility...

...maybe it's just another mistake, like confusing 2005 for 2006... I'm sure you think it's 2005 now since you slept through the real thing while sitting behind the dias.

Mike Green said...

Uh, Sharkey, I think you should read this then reappraise your 5:28 post:
http://klausler.com/fallacies.html

Jon found this, I've found it very beneficial.

Anonymous said...

You are missing it! Check out Ron's article over at SewerWatch. Fan-freakin-tastic! Leggo the pipe! Support the county and forget the tit for tat (even if Ron won't!)

Mike Green said...

Richard, never mind I found it.

Richard, never mind. I found it.
More later.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=06001-07000&file=6500-6536

Mike Green said...

Richard, I just tried that link and it didn't work, my problem , I'll try again.http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=gov&codebody=&hits=20

Mike Green said...

To All. This is what it says:

"6503.1. (a) When property tax revenues of a county of the second
class are allocated by that county to an agency formed for the
purpose of providing fire protection pursuant to this chapter, those
funds may only be appropriated for expenditure by that agency for
fire protection purposes.
(b) As used in this section, "fire protection purposes" means
those purposes directly related to, and in furtherance of, providing
fire prevention, fire suppression, emergency medical services,
hazardous materials response, ambulance transport, disaster
preparedness, rescue services, and related administrative costs.
(c) This section shall not be interpreted to alter any provision
of law governing the processes by which cities or counties select
providers of ambulance transport services.

Mike Green said...

Wow, on the surface it dose not look good, but what do I know, I only speak english, I don't pretend to understand it.
Maybe someone more enlightened will help us?

Shark Inlet said...

I guess that I didn't explain my reasoning carefully enough (especially for those who would be quick to call me an idiot).


Essentially the way that renters interact with the situation is different from property owners. Renters can up an move out far more easily than property owners. Suppose that one believes that there is a 1/3 chance that TriW and out of town will cost the same per month, a 1/3 chance that TriW is more and a 1/3 chance that TriW is less. A renter who thinks this way would vote for the recall ... because the extra costs of "out of town" can be avoided far more easily ... you can just up and move if the costs get too high.

Essentially the same logic works for any renter, no matter their presumed beliefs about the costs of each plan.

To argue otherwise is to argue that renters are more likely to have voted against the recall than property owners is to argue that renters are fools or that renters are more likely than property owners to view TriW as cheaper than "out of town".

Hell, even if a renter were to view TriW as likely cheaper, the very prospect of delaying payment of higher sewer bills might cause them to vote for the recall just to delay the higher sewer bills.


If you're going to put forward the suggestion that the majority of renters voted for TriW (against the recall) you should explain why renters are more likely to prefer that option when property owners broke the other way.


Now if you would be so kind as to explain why my comment that renters can move more easily than property owners if payments get too high makes me an idiot I would appreciate it. Either that or nut up and admit that you were far too quick to jump down my throat when you should have just asked me to explain my comments that you didn't understand.


Mike ... I trust this cleared things up.

Mike Green said...

Sharkey, uh, sure! cripes, I'm sorry! please don't make me read the whole story again!
Head spins!
and
"POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC
Presuming a causal relationship. "Since A came before B, A caused B."

*PG-13 said...

Been gone a while distracted by life (mine and others). Been lurking for a place to jump in. I'm so sorry I missed the cargo cult conversation. < sigh > Where is the justice? I can't even hope to catch up so let me jump in here.

Mike G > Uh, Sharkey, I think you should read this ..... http://klausler.com/fallacies.html

All too good. To which I would add to the common logical fallacies: Argumentum Equivocation Pathetic

The key is there. Interpret it for yourself.

In further response to Shark's skewed logic:

Shark Inlet > A majority of the renters in the district who cast ballots voted for the recall because they figured they could either delay payments or move if the payments got too high. A majority of the property owners who happen to be residents must then have wanted TriW. Property owners who cannot build without a sewer in place preferred TriW to the "plan" that the other candidates had ... or didn't have. I guess that it all comes down to this ... if the majority of renters preferred TriW and the majority of property owners preferred the recall we've got a whole lot of people who are not voting their economic interests. I would then also have to hand it to the renters for voting altruistically for the betterment of their community while the property owners should be scolded for raising the bills of their neighbors.

Oh my. I guess I must be terribly terribly confused. I'm a property owner and I thought I was voting for my economic interest when I thought we could do better than a sewer/park/environmental travesty in the middle of our town. As my previous posts indicate, I'm disappointed in much that has happened since - both just prior to the recall and now after the recall. But that doesn't mean my vote was miscast. It just means there has been a load of bad judgement by a whole lot people. What does CSD stand for anyway? Common Stupid Dummies? And that's giving them more credence than they deserve. It assumes they thought they were doing the right thing but couldn't get it right. The alternative is to believe there was malfeasance or worse. Malfeasance, thy name is LeGros. Sorry Richard. I really do want to honor your effort. I honor that you ran for public office and were elected. I honor that you served. And I honor that you are still engaged in the conversation. I don't believe you harbored dishonest intentions. I can't say that about some others who also ran and held public office. But sorry, I can't simply accept at face value your revisionist interpretations of history. The details of which have been logged and discussed in previous threads so please don't ask me to re-present them yet again as if they may have morphed and changed colors since then. History is history. Facts are facts. Interpretations of historical facts may change but the facts themselves don't change. And nothing has lead me to interpret the facts differently. It still seems you are trying to convince us that you and your CSD was honorable and truthful and, above all, legal. While other CSD's were not. Get over it. The errors of others do not indemnify yours. Your hands in this sordid affair are as dirty as any.

I often think s/he-who-is-now-known-as-fbleg is a bit over the top. As others may think me ;-) But fbleg's post of 1:12 AM (1:12 AM? a kindred spirit?) presents some thoughts for introspection. Specifically,

fbleg > ....but I see an eerie pattern returning where somehow RLG thinks once again that this blog is compelled to serve as a kind of psychologic intervention to address HIS ISSUES.

This sounds familiar. That makes at least two of us.

Richard "FB" LeGros (in response to his eponymous namesake)> You’re not a very good psychiatrist so keep your day job.

Maybe. Maybe not. Still, there might be something worth reflecting on here. Wishing you well. It's not easy work.

And yes, I'll keep my day job.

Mike Green said...

PG! thanks for posting! Wecome back!
I don't think I should be commenting on whether Richard is a nut job or not, mainly because I may fit that bill too.
I have tried to verify his rantings, and quite frankly, untill I get a different deffinition of what the government code means I am alarmed.
Not so much as a bunch of board members may have broken some stupid "rules"
Is the possibility of four of the five board members having to recuse themselves from any bankruptcy proceedings because of conflict of interest. In that they will be defendants in the State proceedings as pertained in the State code I posted above.
May we live in interesting times!

Shark Inlet said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Shark Inlet said...

Mike and PG ...

I respect y'all but if we presume that a vote for the recall was a vote for moving the plant there is no logical fallacy in my argument that the rate of supporting the recall was greater in the renter population ... it is essentially an economics argument.

Note especially to PG ... I am not saying that you were mistaken to vote the way you did ... just that renters could bail far more easily if things went wrong so their comparison between the two sites was more likely to favor "out of town".

Mike Green said...

Must be a red tide!

*PG-13 said...

Nut Job?

Are you suggesting this ISN'T a blog for nut jobs? Oh my!

No, no 'nut job' offense intended. To anybody. Indeed, I think Richard's posts saner than most. They are well constructed, detailed and logical. And much more founded in fact than most. But, I suggest, often self-serving. On this most recent thread I agree with him. He raises many valid points. Points worth considering. Points needing to be addressed. Kudos to Richard.

But there is too often an under lying basis for his arguments which I can't agree with. And which I think discredits his logic. It is this I am pointing out. I'm most definitely not telling him to go away. I appreciate Richard's commentary. But his commentary is not without some self-serving purpose. That's cool. All the rest of us are doing the same. But the rest of us aren't trying to bring the gravitas of prior public office to bear. Or to cleanse our past. Or hide it.

Yes, may we live in interesting times. That's the dance isn't it?

Mike Green said...

Yes I agree!
Richard has the realty of a hammer and all of the smarts of a box of them.

Anonymous said...

Hi ALl,

Please note:
Penal Code Section 424(a)-2 (last sentence marked by ++++) and sentence after 424(a)-7 (highlighted with ++++ signs.
Penal Code Section 425 in it's entirety.

Government Code 6503.1.(a)

I am compliing the Federal Code sections

CALIFORNIA CODES
PENAL CODE
SECTION 424-440

424. (a) Each officer of this state, or of any county, city, town,
or district of this state, and every other person charged with the
receipt, safekeeping, transfer, or disbursement of public moneys, who
either: 1. Without authority of law, appropriates the same, or
any portion thereof, to his or her own use, or to the use of another;
or, 2. Loans the same or any portion thereof; makes any profit out
of, +++++or uses the same for any purpose not authorized by law; +++++++or, 3.
Knowingly keeps any false account, or makes any false entry or
erasure in any account of or relating to the same; or, 4.
Fraudulently alters, falsifies, conceals, destroys, or obliterates
any account; or, 5. Willfully refuses or omits to pay over, on
demand, any public moneys in his or her hands, upon the presentation
of a draft, order, or warrant drawn upon these moneys by competent
authority; or, 6. Willfully omits to transfer the same, when
transfer is required by law; or, 7. Willfully omits or refuses to
pay over to any officer or person authorized by law to receive the
same, any money received by him or her under any duty imposed by law
so to pay over the same;--

++++++++Is punishable by imprisonment in the state
prison for two, three, or four years, and is disqualified from
holding any office in this state.++++++++++

(b) As used in this section, "public moneys" includes the proceeds
derived from the sale of bonds or other evidence or indebtedness
authorized by the legislative body of any city, county, district, or
public agency.
(c) This section does not apply to the incidental and minimal use
of public resources authorized by Section 8314 of the Government
Code.


425. Every officer charged with the receipt, safe keeping, or
disbursement of public moneys, who neglects or fails to keep and pay
over the same in the manner prescribed by law, is guilty of felony.



426. The phrase "public moneys," as used in Sections 424 and 425,
includes all bonds and evidence of indebtedness, and all moneys
belonging to the state, or any city, county, town, district, or
public agency therein, and all moneys, bonds, and evidences of
indebtedness received or held by state, county, district, city, town,
or public agency officers in their official capacity.


CALIFORNIA CODES
GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 6500-6536

6503.1. (a) When property tax revenues of a county of the second
class are allocated by that county to an agency formed for the
purpose of providing fire protection pursuant to this chapter, those
funds may only be appropriated for expenditure by that agency for
fire protection purposes.
(b) As used in this section, "fire protection purposes" means
those purposes directly related to, and in furtherance of, providing
fire prevention, fire suppression, emergency medical services,
hazardous materials response, ambulance transport, disaster
preparedness, rescue services, and related administrative costs.
(c) This section shall not be interpreted to alter any provision
of law governing the processes by which cities or counties select
providers of ambulance transport services.



Any responses to the ISSUE (other by shaming and blaming the messenger?)

Regards, Richard LeGros

Anonymous said...

PS All,

I am amused by many of the today's posts regarding my motivations and intelligence.

I am impressed that our little town is home to hundreds of wastewater project designers and experts, a myriad of psychiatrists and psychoanalysts, and a large population of mind readers who espouse to know so much about the motivation of people that they have never met.

So now that I know you believe me to be a nasty self-serving man with no intelligence, morals, character or balls, can somebody for once ANSWER TO THE DAMN ISSUES OF THE VIEWPOINT?

Laughingly, Richard LeGros

Anonymous said...

Mr. le Gros we watched you we studied you. You never displayed anything close to high character or compassion or even solid common sense. You gave the impression or GREED. and you did not care who was going to pay for your greed. Also you came across as a man who never had to fight for anything. Our community is made up of many people that have had to work very hard to get where they are and they see our current board as honest educated people that truly want to do something to save our community. they have compassion.They have care for the environment and the community. Something never ever revealed by you or the previous board. If you get anger directed towards you ..well we are just satisfied your gone. Good riddance!

Anonymous said...

Hi Anon Above,

So you don't like me. I get it and I'll live.

So, what are your thoughts on the ISSUES OF THE VIEWPOINT?

Regards Richard LeGros

*PG-13 said...

> I am impressed that our little town is home to hundreds of wastewater project designers and experts, a myriad of psychiatrists and psychoanalysts, and a large population of mind readers ....

Yeah, impressive isn't it? I to am impressed. I think that's what makes this little burg so interesting. We might not have paved roads, sidewalks, an auto parts store, or flushable toilets (come 2010). And we might be paying gobs and gobs of money for years and years just to cover our debts born of bad decisions and bad decision making process. But look at waht we do have! Hundreds of wastewater project designers and experts, a myriad of psychiatrists and psychoanalysts, and a large population of mind readers. And that's just a start. I'm sure we could compile a much more detailed list of our kooky population.

Anonymous said...

Richard,

I have a few questions for you... maybe you'll humor me.

When you filed your bankruptcy, what was your financial situation like?

Was your health, personal, family, and social life affected?

Did you make decisions you normally would not have made?

How many people did you owe money to? Did any of them question how you were spending your money during your bankruptcy proceedings?

What about the family members you owed money to?

Did you do any creative financing to try and remedy the problem before you filed for bankruptcy?

Did you borrow money from friends and family to try and prevent your bankruptcy?

Is that how you ended up stiffing them?

Was there any money shuffled around during the proceedings so you could continue to function financially?

I'm just curious... maybe by answering these questions we can better understand the insight you have into the financial troubles at the CSD.

Anonymous said...

Hi Anon Anove,

Yada yada ya....feel better now that you have tried (and failed) to insult me.

Now, how about addressing the issues on the current board spending tax and bond payments illegally for expenses other than what they weree collected for; and then borrowed money secretely to cover their malfeasance?

Or do you just not care the current board have commited felonies by violating penal codes and government codes; punishable by years of prison time and fines?

Regards, Richard LeGros

PS: To All: I was recalled, not exiled to Sberia.
I am a private citizen of Our community, and I will say whatever I wish to expose the inexcusable corruption of the current CSD board.

Anonymous said...

I for one do not care about the supposed misdeeds of this board. The politics have been corrupt in this community ever since the CSD was formed. Big deal, Richard. Your board was part of it as well. Why didn't you ask the community what they wanted in Spring 2004 when the Coastal Commission suggested you do that? Why not? Your holier than thou board that cared so much about this community that they were RECALLED. You want to talk issues with folks on this blog? Yeah we got issues but they're not with the new board!

Anonymous said...

Hi Anon above,

I or the old board obeyed the law. PERIOD

The new board has committed FELONY violations of the Government code and Penal Code.

Again, the ISSUE is the blatantly illegal behavior of this board, not speculation of the behavior of past boards.

This issue is NOT going away. The State fully aware of the violations of state codes, and is gearing up to investigate this board come spring. 2007 is going to be a VERY PAINFUL YEAR for Lisa, Julie, Steve, Chuck and ex-director Fouche.

In the meanwhile, your opinions of the past board are incorrect, and not worth the cyberspace it is written upon.

Regards, Richard LeGros

Anonymous said...

Shark, once again how do you 'know' how renters and property owners voted?
Sincerely, M

Anonymous said...

Richard, your attitude here displays wonderfully why you were recalled. As far as I can tell, Shark is the only one on your side. Maybe you're actually one and the same.

Anonymous said...

Hi Anon above,

Seems to me that you are the one avoiding the ISSUES.

I have not yet seen one coherent explanation from you and others to justify the current board's behavior and illegal spending of tax revenues and bond proceeds; and their illegal borrowing of $1,475,000.

Obviously, you are ashamed and cannot support this board's actions.

The ISSUES will not go away. Neither am I.

Regards, Richard LeGros

PS: Ridicule me all you want. It does not bother me one bit.

Anonymous said...

Hi Richard - Your responses reek of anger, venom, hatred, and a slight touch of sour grapes? Obviously you have no interest in healing our community. That's why you were RECALLED. Hey, you may be right on some of this stuff but people just don't like you. Too bad you won't go away like Stan and let the board who is working with the county get on with a new project.

Anonymous said...

Hi Anon above,

And your positon of the Issues are....?

Regards, Richard LeGros

PS: I was recalled, not exiled to Siberia never to be seen again.

I belong to the Los Osos Community. I am a private citizen who will speak his mind and promote what I beleive to be right. I will not go away; nor do you have the right to suggest I do or quell my voice.

Shark Inlet said...

Lots of stuff since I was last able to check the comments here...

Hmmmm....

To those of you who say that Richard seems self serving and full of venom ... your own posts seem even more full of venom.

What should we make of that?

To the anonymous who wondered how I know who voted for who ... I would suggest you read my comment of 8:41pm on Nov 30. Essentially to suggest that renters who voted were less likely to vote for a the recall is to suggest that the laws of economics are invalid.

Anonymous said...

Shark, I don't feel like reading through all of your posts again to find the exact quote, but something to the effect that property owners voted against the recall. I did re-read your post that you alluded to, and i'm more confused than ever. Talk about subterfuge. From what I can glean from it is that you are possibly using trends in voting to come up with your analysis. I think you can throw out trends when it comes to voting in Los Osos. Oh yea, except for the trend that we don't want a mega million dollar sewer plant/park in the middle of town to be paid for by 5,000 property owners.
And by the way, I am not anonymous. I am
Sincerely, M

Anonymous said...

Okay Richard, how about this. The current Board is trying anything to save this community from, no, wait a minute, it is trying to save the 5000 property owners in the Prohibition Zone from being forced into a paying for a mega-million dollar sewerplant/ park in the middle of town. A park to be enjoyed by everyone in the community. If you can use the word enjoyed and sewerplant/park in the same sentence. What, is this our penance for spoiling the water? Provide a park for everyone to use? I assume we are required to maintain that park as well. The park that everyone will be able to use. My thoughts on the ISSUE, thank god there's somebody trying to save us from the mess that you and your ilk got us into. Considering how you and your ilk swindled us from 1998-2005, and from the facts that I have read, you and your ilk have not always done everything above board.
Sincerely, M

Shark Inlet said...

M ...

I believe the argument about renters being more likely to have voted for the recall is sound.

If one assumes that the recall was essentially about TriW versus out of town (and pretty much everyone in favor off the recall cast the issue that way) ...

Whatever one's perspective on the likely costs and environmental benefits of each possibility, the renter has more reason to vote for the recall than the property owner and thus, the rate of voting for the recall should be higher for renters than property owners. To verify this let's consider a few cases:

Simple case 1: If a person thinks that out of town is certainly going to be cheaper and certainly be better than TriW one will vote for the recall whether renter or property owner.

Simple case 2: If a person thinks that TriW is certainly going to be cheaper and better than out of town one will certainly vote against the recall if a property owner ... but if one is a renter who is likely to move before the out of town plant is finished but after TriW would be finished, one could lower their bills by voting for the recall. Not tons of people in this category, but some.

Case 3: Suppose that one believes that TriW will likely be cheaper but not for sure and that out of town is probably better for the environment. Again, some renters will vote for the recall just because their higher bills will be delayed. There is another group of renters who will also vote for the recall because they hope that out of town will save money and ... if it doesn't work out that way they can just up and move to Morro Bay or Grover.

We could go on and on across all the possible beliefs an individual voter would have and in every case, the voter who happens to rent can limit their worst case financial damage by moving far more easily than a property owners so the renter is essentially facing a different choice and they would vote accordingly. In total, the rate of voting for the recall must have been higher than among those who live in homes they own or many folks in Los Osos must be intentionally voting in ways that they know don't represent their beliefs.

This isn't based on looking at actual voting trends because we can't really do that without an exit poll, but it is an argument based in the laws of economics and mathematics.

By the way, I didn't know exactly what subterfuge is (you suggested my argument was subterfuge) and I am not sure whether I should be offended by your suggestion or whether you may have meant the word differently than as defined by webster. I am not trying to deceive anyone ... if anything I want everyone who wants more information to be able to get that information. Admittedly some information is difficult to grapple with, but I am convinced that with enough homework we can all come to a good understanding of the available information.

Anonymous said...

Thanks.Okay Shark, I actually thought the word subterfuge had a slightly different meaning. Thanks for the correction. It does however describe my line of thought. Mixing in a bunch of words and thoughts that have no real meaning to the question is a way of avoiding something. Much like the word subterfuge means.
PG13, maybe you can help me out with this. You seem to have a way of turning a phrase. Could you ask Shark Inlet how he knows how the property owners in the prohibition zone voted. Thanks.
Sincerely, M

Anonymous said...

M

If your idea of being "saved" is by building a much more expensive project out of town which YOU will pay for, then you have been saved.

If your idea of being "saved" is electing the current CSD board which illegally misused dedicated tax revenues and illegally borrowed $1,475,000 that YOU have to repay, then you have been saved.

If your idea of being "saved" is electing the current CSD board which, through gross mismanagement, forced the CSD into the largest per capita bankruptcy in the history of the United States by acquiring over $40,000,000 in debt that YOU have to pay, then you have been saved.

If your idea of being "saved" is that YOU have to pay much higher water rates, fire and emergency services special tax rates and garbage collection rates because your CSD needs the money to pay attorneys, then you have been saved.

If your idea of being "saved" is electing the current CSD board, which has been striped, by State law, the wastewater project powers because (as stated by our Governor) "the CSD has failed in its responsibility", then you have been saved.

With being "saved" like this, would not you rather lose?

Regards, Richard LeGros

Anonymous said...

Of course I have the right to suggest you quell your voice. And you have the right to respond. Can't you see that the supporters of the new board don't care about your ISSUES? I think you may be wasting your time here.

Anonymous said...

Anon 9:42 above,

They're not my my issues....they're the State's, the County's and those of this community.

That you wish not to acknowledge or address them (hoping they will go away) tells me that you fear them.

It is never a waste of time to insist that elected representaives obey the law.

Regards, Richard LeGros

TIMECLOCK TO SEWER PROJECT TAKEOVER
29 DAYS, 14 HOURS, 2 MINUTES

Anonymous said...

I give up Richard. Go ahead and take them away in chains, so long as they take everybody that has screwed us on this project. If you think I am going to give in to Tri-W as a viable project after all this fight to avoid it, your're mistaken. Heck, I don't think i'm going to be around this earth when something does happen. But I sure don't want to leave behind a sewer plant such as Tri-W. As to your question of rather lose than be saved by the likes of what's going on? I will never want to lose to you.
Sincerely, M

Anonymous said...

M,

I do not care where the project is built.

If you want it out of town, fine by me. That you want to pay a lot more per month to do so is alright by me.

If,as you wrote, you will be gone by the time the project is built, then you are very slefish as your actions will leave others to pay for your folly.

Now, do you think it alright that the current board has violated government and penal codes and illegally borrowed $1,475,000?

Regards, Richard LeGros

TIMECLOCK TO SEWER PROJECT TAKEOVER
29 DAYS, 13 HOURS, 26 MINUTES

Anonymous said...

Yup it's okay with me. Nothing they have done comes anywhere close to what the old board did in ignoring their community, calling off committees,putting parks in sewers, etc. BTW this "sewer project takeover" mantra is very bizarre. You sound like Donald Rumsfeld. Take a chill pill, have a nice warm bath, and let the process unfold.

Anonymous said...

Hi anon above,

You make me laugh. ;-)

Laughing, Richard LeGros

TIMECLOCK TO SEWER PROJECT TAKEOVER
29 DAYS, 10 HOURS, 26 MINUTES

Anonymous said...

Nicer to have you laugh than act like our community is the equivalent of Bagdad. You, too, are a real hoot!

Anonymous said...

Hi Anon Above,

Great! Now that we are all laughing,.....

How do you respond to the UNDENIABLE FACT that the current board illegally spent dedicated tax and bond payment proceeds on attorneys instead of paying costs the money was collected for (by violating Government Code 6503.1(a) and penal Codes 424 and 425)....AND

Illegally borrowing $1,475,000 (by violating the Cal Constitution, Prop 13 an Prop 218) to prevent the CSD from defaulting of the $760,000 CDF fire fee and the 2001 assessment bond payment of $715,000 (all which should have been paid with the tax and bond payment money to begin with!)

Regards, Richard LeGros

Anonymous said...

Jumpin Jimmine Beeswax! Who are you? Did we actually elect you?
Do you have anything else in your brain other than a fixation on putting people in prison? Your own neighbors? Whoever you are, please seek help ASAP.

Anonymous said...

Can you see, Richard, that we don't care about all your alleged illegal activities of the new board? We support them just like your supporters support you! You need to see that the more you push this, the worse it will be for the community. You are starting to feel like an Al Barrow type psycho who can't see anything beyond his own nose. However Al has alot more constructive ideas on sewers I must admit.

Anonymous said...

Hi 2 Anons above,

Atack the messenger.....
Place hands over your eyes and say LA, LA, LA, WE don't hear you......
Insert your heads in sand.....
Blindly follow corrupt leaders....

These are very good descriptions of your not grappling with the UNDENIABLE FACTS that Lisa, Julie, Steve, Chuck and John have, by their own actions, comitted FELONY violations of government and penal codes.

That you are not insisting that folks who have broken the laws of California AND have placed you needlessly into debt by $1,475,000 via illegal loans is AMAZING.

I am not sending anybody to jail. The current board has alresdy performed the acts upon which the State will indict, prosecute and convict.

Regards, Richard LeGros

PS: I am still waiting for a response to the ISSUES.

Anonymous said...

Yea, you're right. Let's send those muthu fer's to jail. I'm plenty pis*ed off. Is that the response you're waiting for?
Sincerely, M

Anonymous said...

As an outsider I am curious, was Tri-W always cheaper or is it just cheaper now?

Anonymous said...

M,

The response that I am waiting for is the ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF AND RATIONAL CONSIDERATIONAL OF the undeniable facts that;

1. The current board spent your tax and bond dollars on obligations other than what they were collectred for.

2. That the current board did not have the right to exclude the public from the decision to borrow $1,475,000 and that the the borrowing by the board has place a cost upon th property owners that they should not pay for.

3. That these actions are inexcusable and that this board must be held accountable for said actions.

As for jail time, that will be a decision of the State.

Regards, Richard LeGros

Anonymous said...

Sorry Richard, I cannot give ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF AND RATIONAL CONSIDERATIONAL OF the undeniable facts that;
Sincerely,M

Shark Inlet said...

Just two things ...

The $1.475M is about $300 per household ... and if we borrowed that money we get to pay interest as well. On the other hand, this might be small, by comparison to the financial impact of other choices of the board. Even so, if illegal, it should be prosecuted just like I should expect to be prosecuted if I were to falsify records.

On the question of whether TriW was always cheaper or just now .... I actually believe that out of town would have been cheaper than TriW back in 1999. The problem is that the election of the board which ran on the platform of "better, faster, cheaper" and putting the plant in the middle of town would seem to suggest that we wanted a fancy ponding plant at TriW. Once the nature of the plant changed, the costs at TriW went up and the costs for putting a plant at another location went up too ... and even faster. The primary reason? Additional design costs (for out of town) and inflation.

Sure, the first board was unwise about some stuff ... this doesn't mean that the current board's approach of moving the location no matter what it costs is a smart thing to do.

Anonymous said...

M,

Then may you give an ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF AND RATIONAL CONSIDERATION OF the undeniable facts?

Thanks for catching my topo ;-)

Regards, Richard LeGros

Anonymous said...

Okay.
Sincerely M.
Your topo?

Anonymous said...

M

TOPO....you know, when your typing fast and your hands oops and types "o" instead of "y", as in in TYPO.

Regards, Richard LeGros

Okay, and?

Anonymous said...

Hi Anon 11:20 and Sharkinlet,

I agree that in 1999 that a project on the outskirts of town, maybe even out of town depending on piping distances, would have been cheaper than Tri-W in it's final configuration. There is little doubt that if the County had been allowed to proceed at the Pismo Site that the project would have cost $65,000,000 in 1999 dollars. Tri-W in 1999 would have cost $75,000,000 or more.

But I also believe that if the County project was to be built TODAY, that the cost of such a project would be $140,000,000.

I also believe that if we built the County Plan in, let's say 2011, that that project would cost about $200,000,000

The effects of inflation over time on costs prevents realization of any less expensive options...going back to redesign rarely results in lower price.

This is why starting over again will not lower the price of a project to the community.

This is also one reason why I voted against forming a CSD as it postposed a solution.

Regards, Richard LeGros

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"As an outsider I am curious, was Tri-W always cheaper or is it just cheaper now?"

This is the danger if what Richard is doing... as he tries to rewrite history.

Tri-W was NEVER cheaper... read this carefully. TRI-W WAS NEVER CHEAPER!!

And it still is not cheaper.

There's plenty to back this on Ron's blog and from many other sources.

Richard is not credible and never has been. Do not listen to his rambling and innaccurate projections. They are based on fantasy.

He does a huge diservice to this community by staying involved in this issue. The voters of Los Osos decided he should not be involved but he will not go away.

Listen to the voters, Richard. Quite interfering... your goal of confusing some of the public is working and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Shark Inlet said...

To or most recent anonymous poster.

You claim that out of town isn't cheaper than TriW. If that is the case, could you please show an error in Richard's calculations where he finds TriW to be considerably less expensive than the Ripley plan. His general credibility aside, if he is mistaken and you are right (and you seem quite sure of yourself) you should be able to explain a calculation error in his cost analysis.

It would be refreshing if, for once, one of the folks who is so darn sure that TriW is more expensive than out of town would at least show it to be the case.

As for your final comment ... you have no right to complain about Richard's participation when your own participation here is so ... um ... quantitatively challenged.

Anonymous said...

HI All,

Below are the projected costs to restart Tri-W.

As you can see under "Monthly Costs Per Property Owners", the monthly cost to the property owner is

$200 PER MONTH CHEAPER

than building outside of town.

Pick whatever cost you want to pay. Tri-W, outside of town.....makes no difference to me.
**********************************

ANALYSIS OF COSTS TO RESTART TRI-W PROJECT
• ASSUME AB 2701 ENACTED SEPTEMBER, 2006
• ASSUME NEW STATE SRF LOAN @ 2.7%, 20 YEAR TERM. ORIGINAL CONTRACTORS PUT BACK TO WORK.
• ASSUME RESTART OF CONSTRUCTION BY OCTOBER, 2007, BY REACTIVIATION OF CURRENT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
• ASSUME INFLATION RATE 0F 8% /YEAR, COUNTY AA-RATED BOND RATE OF 6%, LOCSD CCC-RATED BOND RATE OF 12%

HARD COSTS
Beginning with the September, 2005 construction price of $134,000,000, add:

1. The costs (debt) to the property owners for suspending the Tri-W project………………………………………… ……………………… $32,000,000
These costs include the 90 day suspension costs of the contractors ($3M), pay contractor work costs ($5M),
costs to re-negotiate contractors contracts ($1M), RWQCB fines ($6.5M), repay SRF ($6.5M), SLO County
costs ($2M), Mob-Demob costs ($4M), MWH fee ($1M), money spent by CSD since 10-05 on lawsuits, repaving,
alternate plan ($3M) contractors put back to work; lawsuits and claims settled.
1a. COUNTY portion of debt = ($ 3,000,000)
1b. LOCSD portion of debt = ($29,000,000)

2. The costs for reactivating permits, and lawsuits………………………………………………………………………………………………. $ 1,000,000

3. 2 years of construction cost inflation @ 8% /year (of $134M) until construction commencement………..……………………………… $22,000,000
4. Existing assessment bond costs to property owners….............................................................……………………………………….… $ 20,800,000
4a. Pre-paid assessment bond money collected = ($ 2,900,000)
4b. Bond Assessment on remainder = ($17,900,000)

5. Property owner costs to connect to sewer……………………………………………………………………………................................... $ 20,000,000
5a. 2000 property owners pay out-of-pocket = ($ 8,000,000)
5b 3000 property owners pay via a loan= ($12,000,000)

TOTAL HARD COSTS
• TO THE COUNTY: ($134,000,000) + ($ 3,000,000) + ($1,000,000) + ($22,000,000) = $160,000,000
• TO THE LOCSD: ($ 29,000,000) + ($20,800,000) = $ 49,800,000
• TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS: $ 20,000,000

SUBTOTAL (HARD COSTS) $229,800,000

SOFT COSTS
Project soft costs consist of “A”, “B”, “C”, and “D” costs as listed below;


“A” costs of #1a or #1b, and #2, which may not be funded through an SRF loan FINANCED BY COUNTY $ 4,000,000
FINANCED BY LOCSD $ 29,000,000
AND
“B” costs of original construction cost ($134M) + #3, which may be funded by an SRF loan FINANCED BY COUNTY $154,000,000
AND
“C” costs of existing assessment bond (#4b) FINANCED BY LOCSD $ 17,900,000
AND
“D” costs of #5b FINANCED BY OWNERS $ 12,000,000


“A” SOFT COSTS
• FINANCED BY COUNTY: $ 4,000,000 @ 06% over 30 years results in interest paid of $ 4,634,000
• FINANCED BY LOCSD: $ 29,000,000 @ I2% over 30 years results in interest paid of $ 78,387,000

“B” SOFT COSTS
• FINANCED BY COUNTY: WITH STATE SRF LOAN:
$156,000,000 @ 02.7% over 20 years results in interest paid of $ 46,063,000
“C” SOFT COSTS
• FINANCED BY LOCSD: $ 17,900,000 @ 06.2% over 30 years results in interest paid of $ 21,675,000

“D” SOFT COSTS (only applies to 3000 property owners that borrowed money to connect to sewer)
• FINANCED BY OWNERS $ 12,000,000 @ 06% over 30 years results in interest paid of $ 13,900,000


TOTAL SOFT COSTS
• TO THE COUNTY: $ 50,697,000
• TO THE LOCSD: $100,062,000
• TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS: $ 13,900,000

SUBTOTAL (SOFT COSTS) $164,659,000
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS = [(HARD COSTS)] + [(SOFT COSTS)]

[($229,800,000) + ($164,659,000)] = SUM TOTAL (TOTAL COST OF PROJECT) $394,459,000


BOND NAME ($ PRINCIPAL) + ($ INTEREST) = TOTAL COST
• Bond “A” COUNTY: ($ 4,000,000) + ($ 4,634,000) = $ 8,634,000
• Bond “A” LOCSD: ($ 29,000,000) + ($78,387,000) = $107,387,000
• Bond “B” COUNY: ($156,000,000) + ($46,063,000) = $202,063,000
• Bond “C” LOCSD: ($ 17,900,000) + ($21,675,000) = $ 39,575,000
• Bond “D” OWNERS ($ 12,000,000) + ($13,900,000) = $ 25,900,000


MONTHLY COSTS PER PROPERTY OWNER

COST PER MONTH FOR OM&R AND BOND SERVICE
OM&R: Annual OM&R of $2,300,000 [($2,200,000 / year) / (12 months/year)] / (5000 prop. owners) = $ 36.67 /month

Bond “A” COUNTY [($ 8,634,000 / 30 years) / (12 months/year)] / (5000 prop. owners) = $ 4.79 /month

Bond “A” LOCSD [($107,387,000 / 30 years) / (12 months/year)] / (5000 prop. owners) = $ 59.66 /month

Bond “B” (with SRF Loan) [($202,063,000 / 20 years) / (12 months/year)] / (5000 prop. owners) = $168.38 /month

Bond “C” (existing assessment bond) [($ 39,575,000) / 30 years) / (12 months/year)] / (5000 prop. owners) = $ 21.98 /month

Bond “D” [($ 25,900,000 / 30 years) / (12 months/year)] / (3000 prop. owners) = $ 23.98 /month



FOR THOSE 2000 PROPERTY OWNERS THAT PAY CONNECTION COSTS TO SEWER OUT-OF-POCKET

TRI-W PROJECT
GIVEN the monthly payment for year 01 to year 20 would be: OM&R + Bond “A” COUNTY + Bond “A” LOCSD + Bond “B” + Bond “C”
GIVEN the monthly payment for year 20 to year 30 would be: OM&R + Bond “A” COUNTY + Bond “A” LOCSD + Bond “C”

THEREFORE:
• Monthly payment year 01 to year 20 = ($38.33) + ($4.79) + ($59.66) + ($168.38) + ($21.98) = $291.18 / month per property owner
• Monthly payment year 21 to year 30 = ($38.33) + ($4.79) + ($59.66) + (21.98) = $122.80 / month per property owner
• After year 30, property owners pay OM&R costs only (adjusted for inflation) = $ 36.67 / month per property owner

NOTE: Property owners that pre-paid assessment bond “C” may deduct $21.98 per month from above monthly costs.
THEREFORE:
• Monthly payment year 01 to year 20 = ($38.33) + ($4.79) + ($59.66) + ($168.38) = $269.20 / month per property owner
• Monthly payment year 21 to year 30 = ($38.33) + ($4.79) + ($59.66) = $100.82 / month per property owner
• After year 30, property owners pay OM&R costs only (adjusted for inflation) = $ 36.67 / month per property owner



FOR THOSE 3000 PROPERTY OWNERS THAT BORROW CONNECTION COSTS TO SEWER

TRI-W PROJECT
GIVEN the monthly payment for year 01 to year 20 would be: OM&R + Bond “A” COUNTY + Bond “A” LOCSD + Bond “B” + Bond “C” + Bond “D”
GIVEN the monthly payment for year 20 to year 30 would be: OM&R + Bond “A” COUNTY + Bond “A” LOCSD + Bond “C” + Bond “D”

THEREFORE:
• Monthly payment year 01 to year 20 = ($38.33) + ($4.79) + ($59.66) + ($168.38) + ($21.98) + ($23.98) = $315.16 / month per property owner
• Monthly payment year 21 to year 30 = ($38.33) + ($4.79) + ($59.66) + (21.98) + (23.98) = $146.78 / month per property owner
• After year 30, property owners pay OM&R costs only (adjust for inflation) = $ 36.67 / month per property owner

NOTE: Property owners that pre-paid assessment bond “C” may deduct $21.98 per month from above monthly costs.
THEREFORE:
• Monthly payment year 01 to year 20 = ($38.33) + ($4.79) + ($59.66) + ($168.38) + ($23.98) = $293.18 / month per property owner
• Monthly payment year 21 to year 30 = ($38.33) + ($4.79) + ($59.66)+ (23.98) = $124.80 / month per property owner
• After year 30, property owners pay OM&R costs only (adjust for inflation) = $ 36.67 / month per property owner


Regards, Richard LeGros

Shark Inlet said...

Richard,

Could you also put (here) your cost projections for the non-TriW site?

Anonymous said...

Hi Sharkinlet,

Sure...see below,

To recap, the costs to Restart Tr-W range between $269 to $315 per month.

To build a palnt out of town (in this case Ripley) costs range between $504 to $528 per month.

********************************

ANALYSIS OF COSTS OF RIPLEY-PACIFIC PROJECT

• ASSUME AB 2701 ENACTED SEPTEMBER, 2006
• ASSUME NEW STATE SRF LOAN @ 2.7%, 20 YEAR TERM. NO FEDERAL OR STATE GRANTS OFFSETTING COSTS.
• ASSUME START OF CONSTRUCTION BY OCTOBER, 2013. CONSTRUCTION COMPLETED 2015
• ASSUME INFLATION RATE 0F 8% /YEAR (2006 to 2013), COUNTY AA-RATED BOND RATE OF 6%
• ASSUME LOCSD LIABILITIES TO CONTRACTORS (DUE TO STOPPING WORK ON OCTOBER 3, 2005) AND BOND ASSESSMENT PREPAYEES PAID THROUGH SEWER PROJECT MONTHLY FEES FOR FIRST 5 YEARS OF SEWER PLANT OPERATION (2015 TO 2020)

HARD COSTS
Beginning with the August, 2006 construction price estimate of $100,000,000 by Ripley-Pacific, add:

1. The costs (debt) to the property owners for abandoning the Tri-W project………………………………………… ……………………… $55,000,000
These costs include the 90 day suspension costs of the contractors ($3M), pay contractor work costs ($5M),
costs to re-negotiate contractors contracts ($1M), RWQCB fines ($6.5M), repay SRF ($6.5M), SLO County
costs ($2M), Mob-Demob costs ($4M), MWH fee ($1M), money spent by CSD since 10-05 on lawsuits, repaving,
alternate plan ($3M) contractors’ lawsuits and claims ($20M), repay assessment bond prepayees (3M)
1a. COUNTY portion of debt = ($ 3,000,000)
1b. LOCSD portion of debt = ($52,000,000)

2. The costs of new project to acquire land and easements, project design and engineering, permit acquisition, lawsuits.……………. $ 20,000,000

3. 7 years of construction cost inflation @ 8% /year (of $100M base) until construction commencement....………………………………$ 56,000,000
4. Existing assessment bond costs to property owners….............................................................……………………………………….… $ 20,900,000
4a. Pre-paid assessment bond money collected = ($ 3,000,000) refunded in #1 above
4b. Bond Assessment on remainder = ($17,900,000)

5. Property owner costs to connect to sewer …..………………………………………………………………………................................... $ 20,000,000
5a. 2000 property owners pay out-of-pocket = ($ 8,000,000)
5b 3000 property owners pay via a loan= ($12,000,000)


TOTAL HARD COSTS
• TO THE COUNTY: ($100,000,000) + ($ 3,000,000) + ($20,000,000) + ($56,000,000) = $179,000,000
• TO THE LOCSD: ($ 52,000,000) + ($20,900,000) = $ 72,900,000
• TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS: $ 20,000,000

SUBTOTAL (HARD COST) $271,900,000


SOFT COSTS
Project soft costs consist of “A”, “B”, “C”, and “D” costs as listed below;

“A” costs of #1a or #1b, and #2, which may not be funded through an SRF loan FINANCED BY COUNTY $ 23,000,000
FINANCED BY LOCSD $ 52,000,000
AND
“B” costs of estimated construction cost ($100M) + #3, which may be funded by an SRF loan FINANCED BY COUNTY $148,000,000
AND
“C” costs of existing assessment bond (#4b) FINANCED BY LOCSD $ 17,900,000
AND
“D” costs of #5b FINANCED BY OWNERS $ 12,000,000

“A” SOFT COSTS
• FINANCED BY COUNTY: $ 23,000,000 @ 06% over 30 years results in interest paid of $ 26,643,000
• FINANCED BY LOCSD: $ 52,000,000 @ 07% over 14 years results in interest paid of (paid in 05 years) $ 29,717,000

“B” SOFT COSTS
• FINANCED BY COUNTY: WITH STATE SRF LOAN:
$156,000,000 @ 02.7% over 20 years results in interest paid of $ 46,064,000
“C” SOFT COSTS
• FINANCED BY LOCSD: $ 17,900,000 @ 06.2% over 30 years results in interest paid of $ 21,675,000

“D” SOFT COSTS (only applies to 3000 property owners that borrowed money to connect to sewer)
• FINANCED BY OWNERS $ 12,000,000 @ 06% over 30 years results in interest paid of $ 13,900,000


TOTAL SOFT COSTS
• TO THE COUNTY: $ 72,707,000
• TO THE LOCSD: $ 51,392,000
• TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS: $ 13,900,000

SUBTOTAL (SOFT COSTS) $137,999,000
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS = [(HARD COSTS)] + [(SOFT COSTS)]

[($271,900,000) + ($137,999,000)] = SUM TOTAL (TOTAL COST OF PROJECT) $409,899,000


BOND NAME ($ PRINCIPAL) + ($ INTEREST) = TOTAL COST
• Bond “A” COUNTY: ($ 23,000,000) + ($ 26,643,000) = $ 49,643,000
• Bond “A” LOCSD: ($ 52,000,000) + ($ 29,717,000) = $ 81,717,000
• Bond “B” COUNTY: ($156,000,000) + ($ 46,064,000) = $202,064,000
• Bond “C” LOCSD: ($ 17,900,000) + ($ 21,675,000) = $ 39,575,000
• Bond “D” OWNERS ($ 12,000,000) + ($ 13,900,000) = $ 25,900,000


MONTHLY COSTS PER PROPERTY OWNER

COST PER MONTH FOR OM&R AND BOND SERVICE
OM&R: Annual OM&R of $850,000 [($850,000 / year) / (12 months/year)] / (5000 prop. owners) = $ 14.00 /month

Bond “A” COUNTY [($ 49,643,000 / 30 years) / (12 months/year)] / (5000 prop. owners) = $ 27.58 /month

Debt Payoff “A” LOCSD [($ 81,717,000/ 05 years) / (12 months/year)] / (5000 prop. owners) = $272.40 /month

Bond “B” (with SRF Loan) [($202,064,000 / 20 years) / (12 months/year)] / (5000 prop. owners) = $168.39 /month

Bond “C” (existing assessment bond) [($ 39,575,000) / 30 years) / (12 months/year)] / (5000 prop. owners) = $ 21.98 /month

Bond “D” [($ 25,900,000 / 30 years) / (12 months/year)] / (3000 prop. owners) = $ 23.98 /month



FOR THOSE 2000 PROPERTY OWNERS THAT PAY CONNECTION COSTS TO SEWER OUT-OF-POCKET

RIPLEY-PACIFIC PROJECT
GIVEN the monthly payment for years 2015 to 2020 would be: OM&R + Bond “A” COUNTY + Payoff “A” LOCSD + Bond “B” + Bond “C”
GIVEN the monthly payment for years 2020 to 2035 would be: OM&R + Bond “A” COUNTY + Bond “B” + Bond “C”
GIVEN the monthly payment for years 2035 to 2045 would be: OM&R + Bond “A” COUNTY + Bond “C”

THEREFORE:
• Monthly payment years 2015 to 2020 = ($14.00) + ($27.58) + ($272.40) + ($168.39) + ($21.98) = $504.35 / month per property owner
• Monthly payment years 2020 to 2035 = ($14.00) + ($27.58) + ($168.39) + ($21.98) = $231.95 / month per property owner
• Monthly payment years 2035 to 2045 = ($14.00) + ($27.58) + (21.98) = $ 63.66 / month per property owner
• After year 2045, property owners pay OM&R costs only (adjust for inflation) = $ 14.00 / month per property owner



FOR THOSE 3000 PROPERTY OWNERS THAT BORROW CONNECTION COSTS TO SEWER

RIPLEY-PACIFIC PROJECT
GIVEN the monthly payment for years 2015 TO 2020 would be: OM&R + Bond “A” COUNTY + Payoff “A” LOCSD + Bond “B” + Bond “C” + Bond “D”
GIVEN the monthly payment for years 2020 TO 2035 would be: OM&R + Bond “A” COUNTY + Bond “B” + Bond “C” + Bond “D”
GIVEN the monthly payment for years 2035 TO 2045 would be: OM&R + Bond “A” COUNTY + Bond “C” + Bond “D”

THEREFORE:
• Monthly payment years 2015 to 2020 = ($14.00) + ($27.58) + ($264.47) + ($168.39) +($21.98) +(23.98) = $528.33 / month per property owner
• Monthly payment years 2020 to 2035 = ($14.00) + ($27.58) + ($168.39) + ($21.98) + (23.98) = $255.93 / month per property owner
• Monthly payment years 2035 to 2045 = ($14.00) + ($27.58) + (21.98) ) + (23.98) = $ 87.64 / month per property owner
• After year 2045, property owners pay OM&R costs only (adjust for inflation) = $ 14.00 / month per property owner

Regards, Richard LeGros