Pages

Friday, December 01, 2006

As Sewerville Spins and Other Ongoing Sillies

Been loving some of the letters to the editor lately. They qualify as “Astroturf,” i.e. letters supposedly from the “grassroots,” that are actually generated in an organized way around talking points from some group or other. The theme they’re taking comes from the recent Tribune “Viewpoint” written by the recalled and former CSD members, with the theme of “Woe Is Los Osos, Poor, Poor Tormented Los Osos, Oh, Oh.”

My favorite matching-themes letter is headlined by the Tribune, “Osos is going under,” with the author’s “pleading to anyone who will listen. Please help us, we are drowning in our own septic systems.”

Gosh, I’ve got to find out where those folks live and row over them in my small boat with a pail. Since the streets are filled with raw sewage and Los Osos is sinking into a slough of despond, it’ll be tough going, but somebody’s gotta do it.

Over at New Times, Patrick Klemz had a news update on “De-assessing the situation,” that included the note that Taxpayer’s Watch still owes LAFCO some $27,000 for costs involved with their attempt to dissolve the Los Osos CSD. It states, “LAFCO executive officer Paul Hood confirmed the delinquent status and said the commission is contemplating a lawsuit.” This qualifies as irony. Also note that the dissolution hearings, dragging on as they did, cost the CSD a pretty penny too. But so far as I know, the CSD isn’t suing Taxpayers Watch to get their money back.

But the best is last: “The LAFCO bill is a contractual disagreement,” Taxpayer Watch [Gordon] 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?”

Gosh, when Gordon was elected to the CSD, he knew – on day one – that the original Solutions Group’s Ponds of Avalon wouldn’t fly with the RWQCB, that the reports nixed it, from day one. Yet went on to spend tax money for a plan he knew from day one wouldn’t fly? He also knew that the “strongly held community values” of wanting Tot-Lots next to an in-town sewer plant listed on the SOC wasn’t backed up by any evidence. Yet he continued to vote for a project he knew from day one was operating under a phony SOC. And he knew from the de novo hearing exactly what the Coastal Commissioner meant by the words “bait and switchy,” yet he continued to vote to spend money when he could have stopped right then. And from day one of the recall, he knew he didn’t have to vote to start pounding money into the ground weeks before that election, he also knew he could vote to set the election date earlier than he did, but he voted to set it as late as possible, not to mention he also voted to increase the SRF loan some $40 million without any 218 vote, etc. etc. all things that cost the community dearly.

So, I say, “Why should WE pay for something that HE could have decided to nix from day one?”

The Tribune weighed in with an interesting headline: “County will try to block Tri-W sale.” Appears the County has filed a suit to have the bankruptcy judge block any sale of Tri-W. This story’s interesting because it makes me wonder exactly what hidden agenda is at work here.

At the final LAFCO hearing, several LAFCO members were jumping up and down in their seats over the idea that Tri W might be sold. Paavo Ogren, the sewer project manager went to the microphone, utterly sanguine about it all, to state that as far as he was concerned, the sale or non sale of Tri W would have no impact on his department’s evaluation of any project, no problema. And since the law says that the county must receive a first-offer, heads-up of any notice of sale, there wasn’t any way the site could be sold in the dead of night to some guy name Joe who arrived with $3.5 mil in a sack.

Now, the county’s heading into court, another version of jumping up and down in their seats, and the question is, Why? Especially since, to my knowledge, there are no buyers of Tri W, (not even the county) and the CSD board has not voted to sell it, indeed, there may even be a board majority consensus not to do anything until the county’s full site evaluations are in – in other words, everybody get their fingers off the scales. So, why the county’s suit? What’s really up? More hidden agendas?

Proof positive of just how hard this project’s gonna be, when there are so many agendas, so many hidden agendas, so little trust (alas, often with good historic reason) and so many sappers scuttling around with their little shovels.

Meantime, the Tribune printed another “Viewpoint,” this one by newly elected CSD Board member, Joe Sparks. He closes his essay with this: “The election reflected the eclectic and diverse community that makes Los Osos a great place to live. In contrast to previous elections, I will be a director elected to our Los Osos Community Services District who did not advocate or oppose a specific wastewater project in the election. That in itself is a remarkable statement by the voters that our community can indeed compromise and move ahead.”

Compromise and move ahead? Quel novel suggestion.

And finally over at Sewerwatch (http://www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com/) Ron Crawford’s having fun. Kneecapping, indeed.

His blog entry raises a question about the recalled directors, Gordon Hensley, Taxpayers Watch, the “Dreamers,” et al. What is the driving force behind their relentless kneecapping of the CSD and the citizens (remember the wonderful secret email to Roger Briggs of the RWQCB to “fine the CSD out of existence,” apparently forgetting that the sender was really asking that her friends and neighbors be “fined out of existence.”) And, for Heaven’s sake, didn’t recalled Director Gustafson move to Iowa or something? Yet there he is a co-signer on the recent, “O Woe” Viewpoint? What’s that all about?

After the election I wrote a column suggesting a Medean fury at work, not to mention a battle between the Dauphins and the sans culottes.

You would think that after the recall, after the recent dissolution failure, after the Blakeslee bill took the sewer project out of the CSD’s hands, after the failure to elect a TP majority “slate,” these folks would say, “Well, O.K, we gave it the old College Try and failed so maybe the majority of citizens are looking for another way, so maybe we need to stop knee-capping and sit down and figure out some solutions that will work for the whole community.”

But that doesn’t seem to be happening, so I’m beginning to wonder if these folks aren’t stuck in one of those Grade B movies wherein the ruling junta gets ousted from Clopkovnia by the irate citizens making ugly crowd noises and carrying pikestaffs and brooms, whereupon our little deposed band settles in nearby Plotznovia where they spend years in grubby penury holed up in a dismal shack somewhere filing endless lawsuits and scribbling tracts and dreaming of the day when they can gather a glittering army of millions to invade Clopkovnia, build their centrally located, magnificent crenellated and be-jeweled Tri-W Sewer plant, -- Avalon, at last! –“take our town back,” and thereby restore the rightful kings!

Meanwhile, Clopkovnia is trying to move ahead in a Joe Sparkian spirit of cooperation and compromise and mutual problem solving, but there sit our knee-cappers, expending all this energy and money and time. Why? What’s the point? What the hell is it really all about anyway?

102 comments:

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 compiling 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

Shark Inlet said...

What the hell is this all about anyway?

Folks on both sides (and you are one, Ann) just want what they think best for our community. The problem here is that one side seems to feel that there is nothing wrong with TriW and that delay causes increases in cost while the other side views TriW as horribly problematic and thinks that out of town will be less expensive.

This is a classic impasse.

The key to the solution as Joe and others suggest is to stop feeling so strongly about the site (good or bad) and to let the financing and engineering issues guide our thinking.

Sure, TriW has problems ... and so does the Ripley idea and so do all the others. The question really is what do we get with each plan and what will we have to pay for each plan.

If out of town will be that much better (friendlier to the environment, downwind, etc.) it sounds like the choice would be a no-brainer if the costs were the same. Similarly, if the costs favored TriW but the benefits of both were pretty comparable, TriW would be the no brainer choice.

It all comes down to this ... if we find out how much more people would be willing to pay for out of town we could figure out what the consensus is for our town.

Anonymous said...

Hi All,

Sharkinlet makes perfect sense.

Want to know a secret?....I do not have a preference if the treatment plant is at Tri-W or elsewhere. I just hope that Los Osos will comply with the law and build a waste water project sooner than later. I will not fight the decisions to be made by the County or the Prop 218 vote. If it can be shown that the majority now want the treatment plant out of town, fine....just do not lament over the price to be paid.

Regards, Richard Legros

Anonymous said...

Shark I've said a thousand times and I truly believe that to the sewer jihadists like Ann, Ron and their ilk it's not about cost, it's about NOT building at Tri-W. It's not about what's best for the community, it's about being "right" and "proving" others are wrong. The sewer issue lost it's perspective a long time ago. Like any war, the sewer war in Los Osos is waged by those who no longer remember what the real war is about. They just fight simply to keep fighting.

Anonymous said...

Richard LeGros no longer owns property inside the prohibition zone. He will not be paying a dime toward a solution, get a job Richard, you are no longer a voice of the people (were you ever?).

Anonymous said...

After wading thru this long diatribe, what is YOUR POINT?

Does it bother you that more votes were cast for Joe and Maria than for Steve and Chuck?

Are you frustrated that there are many many citizens that don't agree with your demonization of them?

You rant on about lawsuits but never mention that all the current board members have either individually filed lawsuits or were members of groups that filed before they became directors?

Talk about hypocracy!

It appears that the only way out of all of this is through the legal and regulatory process. This is expensive but it is how a democracy works!

How about a piece supporting the value of available democratic processes (like lawsuits)! in action!

If you can explain why lawsuits by one side and not the other is a good thing, you can convert me to your side!

Shark Inlet said...

To our anonymous of 8:25 ...

We've got to be gracious with those who view TriW as simply wrong or who truly think it a good idea to "move the sewer no mater what it costs."

There is nothing wrong with that opinion ... at all.

The problem is if those same folks, who are advocating for a new location, refuse to recognize that moving the location will cost us a whole ton of money.

There are costs and benefits of every possible sewer project. The question is which is the best cost/benefit package for our town.

The reason that I argue for TriW is mostly that I don't think it is anywhere near as bad as some think it to be and that I value getting the solution online ASAP so that we don't totally destroy our aquifer with both saltwater intrusion and nitrates and I also think that most of our town is very price sensitive. If people complain about water or fire rate increases that are less than $50/month it would seem that if moving the sewer would cost about that or more, our townsfolk would prefer TriW with it's flaws to out of town with it's higher pricetag.

The key here is that we should all consider all aspects of the problem, not just our favorite issues or our pet peeves. I've learned a lot from Ron's historical pieces. I've learned a lot from talking with geologists and from reading the Ripley report, the SRF contract and seeing the ACL hearings.

What I've learned from all this reading and listening is that there is pretty much no way we'll satisfy everyone. Heck, I think we'll be lucky to satisfy 60% of those in our town. Even so, after some decision is made, as long as someone doesn't go and hose it up with another lawsuit, we'll return to our lives. We'll be a bit poorer due to our higher bills and many of our friends will have left town because they can't afford it anymore ... but that was what was going to happen even with the County plan before the CSD was voted in.

*PG-13 said...

Once past Richard's carry-over 'CAN"T ANYBODY STAY ON MY ISSUE's' thing, this comment thread started off amazingly logically.

Shark Inlet > Folks on both sides ... just want what they think best for our community. The problem here is that one side seems to feel that there is nothing wrong with TriW and that delay causes increases in cost while the other side views TriW as horribly problematic and thinks that out of town will be less expensive. This is a classic impasse. The key to the solution as Joe and others suggest is to stop feeling so strongly about the site (good or bad) and to let the financing and engineering issues guide our thinking. Sure, TriW has problems ... and so does the Ripley idea and so do all the others. The question really is what do we get with each plan and what will we have to pay for each plan.

To which we all cry Amen!

I agree with Richard. > Sharkinlet makes perfect sense.

and my jaw dropped when he said > .... I do not have a preference if the treatment plant is at Tri-W or elsewhere.

Wow, what a concept. Isn't this what many of us were asking for all along? Do comparative engineering analysis, run and publish comparative numbers, then pick one of the options. Granted, identifying a best option tends to be a bit murkier than posting the numbers. But I can't help but think if we had had such analysis for any set of options, perhaps just one other option, this whole train wreck could have been avoided. Why oh why oh why didn't we have comparative analysis of different plans to choose from? Uh, that's a rhetorical question. I think we've been around that one at least a few dozen times. Some thought such analysis would be too costly. Or unnecessarily costly. Or take too much time. Could it have cost any more or taken any more time than what we have now? I can't imagine that. The right process sounds so simple. Why was it so difficult to follow?

OK, yeah. There are some sewer jihadists who were/are myopically focused on site versus any other considerations. I won't claim to know their number. I do sense they are a minority. Especially when each side is counted separately. I suppose everybody gets to paint their labels however they choose. I don't see Ann or Ron or Spectator or Shark Inlet as jihadists. Each of these as well as many others have added to open discussion of the issues. They have their perspectives and they may present a slanted argument but what do you expect? We're not gonna get through this without stepping on some toes and hurting some feelings. That's how it works. I even question the term jihadists to describe some of the fringe interests. Many that you might label as jihadists are simply those who place a different value than you on different aspects of the sewer. For some placing a sewer in the middle of town as the gateway to our community represents a huge loss. Still, even this is an economic consideration. They have the right to balance their books however they choose. Jihadists, on the other hand, are not economists. And they are not served by open discussion except to use it to create chaos or fear or doubt. There are some jihadists among us. But I think not all that many. Sadly, the few we do have were often driving the train. Again, I claim that if the populace had been given decent quantifiable information instead of slogans, empty promises and battle cries things would have gone much different.

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...

What a gutless swine asking such questions anonymously.

Anonymous said...

"So, why the county’s suit? What’s really up? More hidden agendas?"

Ann do you think maybe your girl Julie Tacker's assertions that they need to get that property sold in order to finance their bankruptcy has anything to do with it? How about your girl Julie Tacker's assertion she will lobby against the 218 vote if Tri-W is involved?

Anonymous said...

PG-13,

All those studies were done. Where were you when that occured?

Build the treatment plant where you....just stop crying about the cost.

Meanwhile, the current CSD board has:
1. Received your dedicated tax $'s
2. Spent it illegally.
3. Borrowed $1.475 Mil illegally
4. Spent the borrowed $1.475 Mil
5. You get to pay the $1.475 Mil

And the current board's behavior doesn't bother you?

Regards, Richard LeGros

Anonymous said...

Ann asks: "So, why the county’s suit? What’s really up? More hidden agendas?"

Are you kidding me? The Foolish 5 have proven they can't be trusted to make a smart decision, nor do they know how to handle money. Does the County suit really require explanation?

Give us a break, Ann.

Anonymous said...

So what if Julie said "they" want to sell TRIW? Lisa has stated they don't want to sell. I think the board is with Lisa, not Julie.

*PG-13 said...

Richard > PG-13, All those studies were done. Where were you when that occured?

I don't know. Darn, and I was looking for that analysis too. I asked people about it. Seems lot's more people than just me missed these studies and the logical proven conclusions derived from them. And I don't ever recall such options being presented to the community for open discussion regarding cost versus benefits of Tri-W versus any other well-developed and quantitatively explored option.

Not 'til you started publishing your ad hoc spreadsheets (on the Trivial's web-board following your recall). Which, I hafta say, were pretty good. Sadly they were terribly late and totally one-sided. To paraphrase you: "Here's what Tri-w is going to cost us. Use your own analysis to prove that anything else is going to be cheaper." That's hardly the open discussion and comparative analysis I was suggesting the board should have provided and which would have been a really good idea. And, may I remind you, even your numbers were under-the-table and unofficial. You were no longer in office. Yet you had access to such numbers. Why couldn't the board openly publish those numbers before the recall? And why couldn't they publish similar numbers for at least one, or two, other options under review? You claim the studies were done and, implicitly, fairly communicated to the community. Sorry Richard. Go fish. The analysis I'm talking about here was never published by you or your board. Somebody please correct me if I'm lost in space on this. I will gladly offer Richard an apology if these accusations are wrong.

The next set of quantitative analyses I saw were the Ripley reports. Let's see. Step 1: Commit to Tri-W. Step 2: After the recall Richard publishes his personal spreadsheets in a late partial defense of Tri-W. Step 3: Ripley study's and share info & data about some other options. The cost for which was paid under serious duress and legal pressure brought by the membership of the prior board. Dang, this paragraph stinks!!!

Gasp! And now Richard says I missed all the analysis which proved Tri-W better, cheaper and faster than any other option. Hey, I'm not necessarily denying that. Tri-W should have been winning the race. It should have been winning by a lap at least! It was given every benefit, every bait-&-switchy, under-the-table, wink-wink, nod-nod, look-over-there not at-my-hand boost that any proposal should ever hope to receive. And yet, ..... and yet, ..... and yet it still stunk to high heaven. Tri-W was ultimately slowed by the weight of its own deceit. I say slowed. It still may happen. And, like Richard, I don't really care whether Tri-W wins or not. In this respect a site may win but people only lose. There are no winners of real import here. We are all gonna pay. Big Time!

Richard > Build the treatment plant where you....just stop crying about the cost.

Truth be told, given everything that has come down, I kinda wish we had the sewer park, picnic areas, amphitheater, doggie-ville and central community center which Tri-W was going to provide. That's not a totally insane benefit. I commend the people who tried to make that float. Good vision. But bad - no, exceedingly ugly - process. There's a lesson to be learned here: You can't float dreams on sh*t. Good process trumps ..... well, gee, in my mind it pretty much trumps everything.

No, I'm not crying about cost. Don't think I ever did. Whatever the cost that's what it's going to be. Yeah, I do think we've squandered opportunities to make it cheaper. And better. Faster, as an option passed long ago.

Richard > And the current board's behavior doesn't bother you?

Dang. How can I make this any clearer. YES, IT DOES BOTHER ME!!!!!! I'm totally bummed about the board's recent behavior. But I'm even more bummed about what lead them to the situation they were trying to respond to. When walking the plank at the end of sword ... which prod of the sword is the most egregious? Yeah, the last prod is the one sending the victim off the end of the board. But did the other prods not play an equal part?

*PG-13 said...

PPS to my previous post, least any of us miss it:

Richard (from the end of the previous blog) > 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.

On this I will unequivably support you. As I've tried to convey previously, I admire your willingness to stay engaged, to post in this venue, to disucss the issues, to argue your points. I might not agree with you but I really really do admire your commitment. And your willingness to stand and defend your position. It takes guts to show up here every day presenting your take on the situation. And it takes guts to stay and participate in this community. This is the magic of democratic discourse. I don't agree with you, I don't understand you, and I think you a little psychologically self-deceiving. But I gotta say I respect you. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

PG13

I have no qualms with people researching and questioning my cost analysis. I hope people have attempted to grapple with the numbers. I hope others produce numbers too; but so far as I know my analysis is the only serious attempt I've seen. I hope when people question the analysis, the responses are not just blanket condemnations.....better to have specific observations of the numbers or assumptions made. I will gladly alter the calculations to produce new results on the basis of credible comments by critics. Do you have any? I really want to know.

As to process, it was followed to a T. While I know you disagree, please tell me exactly was done incorrectly; or for that matter what you think the process is.

As to your position about the new board's behavior, thank you for being honest. I do appreciate it.

But remember, nobody forced the board to violate government and penal codes by misspending dedicated revenues or acquiring illegal loans. I will leave it up to the Court, State and County audits to determine why they did it.

Regards, Richard LeGros

PS: Per you PPS, I guess I am just one wild and crazy guy.

Anonymous said...

i honestly try to avoid posting in here like the plague.
i believe these ad nauseam circular arguements are a huge waste of time but i cannot let this one go............................

anon 8:54am says........
"Does it bother you that more votes were cast for Joe and Maria than for Steve and Chuck?"

to anon 8:54am....
Does it bother you that 7677 votes were cast for the Taxpayers Watch(sewer in the center of town(TRI-W) candidates and 9040 votes were cast for "move the sewer" candidates? MOVE THE SEWER WINS BY 54%. I wouldn't call this a landslide but it's not exactly 50/50 either.
This is what the results of the last election are.....a CLEAR STATEMENT that this community supports an out of town project........

I guess my question is this...
how many campaigns and elections does the nonsolutions group/save the nightmare/ taxpayers waste group have to lose before they realize that this Community wants an out of town project? If they hadn't all lied to us in 1998, we'd all be hooked up right now to a county out-of-town project and we'd be paying about $50-70/ month. Thanks, richard, gordon, stan, pandora, shark inlet & co....thanks for your lie of cheaper, better, faster that cost us all millions.
My next question is this.....
How much more money(of theirs and ours)is Taxpayers Waste willing to waste in the face of a Community that has voted time and time again for an out of town project?

just a brief history....

2004
Schicker/Tacker run for CSD office on "move the sewer" platforms against a "dreamer" candidate and win hands down.
2005
Hensley, Gustafson, Le Gross try to ramrod a sewer project into the center of our town and all three are recalled in disgrace.
2006
"Save the Dream" morphs into "Taxpayers Waste" and campaigns to fine the CSD and property owners of Los Osos out of existence. Then, taxpayers waste starts a campaign to Dissolve the LOCSD. After Taxpayers Watch wastes tens of thousands of dollars of the County's, the CSD's, and their own time and money, LAFCO denies taxpayers waste their petition to dissolve the LOCSD. In November 2006, the very group that attempted to destroy our local government, endorces a slate of three candidates to run for the LOCSD. The only two incumbents(Cesena/Senet) who support "move the sewer" in victory, retain their seats. Joe Sparks, who at every opportunity during the campaign, vehemently denies being affiliated with "taxpayers waste" and claims profusely to be running as an "independent" wins the third seat on the CSD by default....
Move the Sewer wins again.

note: the deadbeats at taxpayers watch still owe the citizens of San Luis Obispo County over $27,000 dollars for their failed attempt at trying to destroy our local Government. Thanks, assholes. Richard le Gross, deadbeat extraordinaire....after stiffing his own creditors by declaring personal bankruptcy, he bankrupts our community by starting a project that our Community voted against three weeks before we voted against it. Now, he and his asshole friends are trying to stiff the citizens of San Luis Obispo County after their failed attempt to try and destroy our local government. I'm not sure if the word "asshole" is in the dictionary, but if it is, I guarantee you that Richard le Gros' picture is next to it. Richard's jackass friend, Gordon Hensley, is actully quoted in the New Times as saying this; "Why should we pay for something that could of been decided on day one?"
WHAT???????
Unfucking believeable. Can I nominate this for dumbass dipshit statement of the year?
Yes Gordon, I'm sure you would of loved it if, on day one, LAFCO had denied your petition. Can you picture it?
"Here LAFCO, here are our 1600 signatures that took us four months to collect."
LAFCO(without consideration); "DENIED".
Is this why you want your money back Gordon? Because LAFCO didn't deny your petition without consideration? Are you fucking kidding me?
I'd love to see you waste another $10000 on a lawyer trying to explain this one to a judge.....
Yes, Taxpayers Waste, these are the selfish asshole idiots that have cost our County, our Community, and themselves millions.....

My final question for Gordon and Richard is this.....How many times can you guys hit yourselves in the head with a hammer before you realize it's yourself that you're hurting? Unfortunately, it's not just yourself you're hurting, it's your fellow citizens. And if it weren't for you, we'd already have an out of town wastewater project. By their continued attempts to act against the will of this Community, they have cost us all millions and millions and millions.
The lies they told us in 1998 have cost us millions and millions and billions.

Finally, I just have to comment on this final quote from Richard le Gross: " 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."

Yes, I know you will Richard. And, I thank you for it. I thank you for hanging out at the Taxpayers Watch booth at farmer's market and Octoberfest. I am sure your presents there probably cost Maria the election. I also want to thank you for using the "F" word at an open public Community CSD meeting on primetime TV. Ever wonder why you were the BIGGEST LOSER in the recall election? I would tell you to go fuck yourself but you seem to be doing a pretty good job of that on your own. Thank you. Thank you, for being you.
Because, I know this Community and I know it will always vote against you and your kind.
Have a nice day.........


that's it for me folks.....
i'm going to return a few emails and shutdown my computer for the weekend.
life is too short.
i will be outside enjoying the crisp clean air and long shadows of a cool wintery day while all you guys needle and bite eachother in the back of the neck like a pack of rats after the last piece of cheese.....
the trappings of blog poster obsession and addiction........

have a great weekend everybody!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Churadogs said...

Richard sez:"Any responses to the ISSUE (other by shaming and blaming the messenger?)

Regards, Richard LeGros

7:58 AM, December 01, 2006 "

did you get all this stuff you listed, (codes & etc) , with evidence & documents, to the Federal prosecutor yet? The local D.A? (so far, both seem relucant to get involved, but maybe you'll have better luck?)

Inlet sez:"It all comes down to this ... if we find out how much more people would be willing to pay for out of town we could figure out what the consensus is for our town.

8:05 AM, December 01, 2006"

THAT should have been done several years ago, the Chinese Menu method, vote for one, A at $ or B at $. No problem.

PG 13 sez:"I even question the term jihadists to describe some of the fringe interests. Many that you might label as jihadists are simply those who place a different value than you on different aspects of the sewer."

for me, a sewer jihadist is someone who wants X, will do ANYTHING (ends justify the means) to get X, will fudge the numbers to get X, will lie to get X, will not allow anyone to chose anything other than X, will move heaven and earth to get X and so forth. Those folks ARE a tiny minority, but as everyone knows, they have a huge impact on this community because the majority of people don't speak up and say, Knock it off. Give us the projects and the fair numbers, we'll decide what we want to buy, we're not married to X or Y of Z, let's take a look, vote, pay our money then go home and argue about something else.

Inlet sez:"The reason that I argue for TriW is mostly that I don't think it is anywhere near as bad as some think it to be and that I value getting the solution online ASAP so that we don't totally destroy our aquifer with both saltwater intrusion and nitrates and I also think that most of our town is very price sensitive."

According to the latest Cleath & Assoc report and the updated Ripley report, the Tri W site won't work any onger for recharge and stopping salt water intrustion. By the time the water from the Broderson recharge (only 10 % was expected to get down there) gets to the lower aquifer, the salt water will have moved in so all of it will be lost. It's really questionable, with the new water repoprt updates, if TriW would ever have worked as promised.

Anonymous sez:"So what if Julie said "they" want to sell TRIW? Lisa has stated they don't want to sell. I think the board is with Lisa, not Julie."

Indivisual board members can say anything they want, but it takes a board majority vote to get anything done. In this case, the board would have to vote 3 -2 to sell Tri W. so what Julie "says" meaning nothing. Only the vote counts.

Anonymous said...

To Anon above,

You need to learn to curb that anger. Besides, your anger is misplaced.

To Ann,

1. You bet!
The State, the County (which is suing the CSD NOW on these ISSUES) the grand jury and the DA has this the documents and law codes sections. The gears of justice are beginning to turn.

THESE ISSUES ARE NOT GOING AWAY.

You can avoid them all you want, but eventually you will have to deal with them.

2. Recharge of treated wastewater at the Broderson site has a direct affect upon the recharge of the lower aquifer and stopping salt water intrusion. These goals were not to be achieved by injecting water directly into the lower aquifer. The goals were too achieved by dramatically reducing the amount of water that the community was drawing from the lower aquifer. If you reduce the draw on the lower aquifer, the aquifer has more time to recover (from bit's natural sources) and slow the draw of salt water in. This was to be done by gradually weaning the community off of lower aquifer water to using upper aquifer water. Over time, little of the lower aquifer water would be needed.

TIMECLOCK TO SEWER PROJECT TAKEOVER
29 DAYS, 13 HOURS, 45 MINUTES

Regards, Richard LeGros

Shark Inlet said...

To our most recent foul language friend ... when you suggest that Richard and I have anything to do with "better, faster, cheaper" you are mistaken. Richard opposed the formation of the CSD in the first place because he thought (accurately) that the County's plan would be less expensive than what the CSD would ultimately come up with. I, on the other hand was one of the sheep who was fooled into voting for the CSD (just like most of the town) because the solutions group plan sounded cool and possibly cheaper. "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice ..." This has been one of the reasons I am so hesitant to trust anyone who waltzes into office with a claim of "we'll do it better and cheaper" like Lisa, Julie, Chuck and the rest. They've not demonstrated they can do anything cheaper than TriW so I remain unconvinced that their undefined plan will be a good idea. If they had actually gotten a plan together that was clearly cheaper, clearly plausible and vetted by the RWQCB and CCC in advance I would have likely supported efforts to move the sewer. However, this wasn't the case. In any case, to lump me and Richard in the Solutions Group was a mistake.


Ann,

You are right that back in 2000 and 2001 we should have been given more than one option and an advisory vote should have been taken.

However, just because that wasn't done some five years ago is no excuse for stopping a fully designed, funded and permitted project before finding out what the alternative was. As I've suggested before, the CSD could have gotten permission from the SWRCB in advance to pause TriW construction (at the site at least) until a court decision on Measure B (paid for by Al and CASE, not the district) could be rendered. This would give a month or three of time to study alternative sites and their costs and we could at least have ballpark figures with which to work. Had Rob Miller done this work in consultation with folks at the RWQCB, SWRCB and Nelson Environmental it wouldn't have cost that much but it would have certainly given us enough information to know whether stopping the TriW construction is a good idea or not.

On your claims about the implication of the Cleath and Ripley reports ... I've talked with Cleath about this and you are incorrect. Even if only 10% of the recharged water makes it to the lower aquifer, with water blending (and the fact that our primary aquifer recharge is rainwater, not septic, there would be a huge benefit to the saltwater intrusion problem. Essentially Tim said that while the original Broderson recharge plan wouldn't work exactly as originally proposed it would be far better than doing nothing for five years and then using the Ripley in-lieu method.

Anonymous said...

Imagine, Richard advising someone to control their anger.

Anonymous said...

anon 9:45pm says:

"a CLEAR STATEMENT that this community supports an out of town project........"

anon, would you like a clear statement from what the people from out of town want - oh yes, PEOPLE LIVE out there!
That would be "NO, we don't want YOUR plant in OUR neighborhood."

Anonymous said...

Hi Anon 11:44 above,

Gee....

as I have had one sad public outburst of anger, AND
I have since happily gotten on with my life without anger, THEN

I am imminently qualified to advise that anger need not control one's life.

Imagine that.

Laughingly, Richard LeGros

TIMECLOCK TO SEWER PROJECT TAKEOVER
29 DAYS, 11 HOURS, 59 MINUTES

paying attention said...

Oh God Richard, you did that count down thing in 2004, it backfired big time...let me recommend you stop right now with your countdown to County "take over", I call it the "Blakeslee Bendover" or the "County Coup". You call it what you want, but if you think this community is going to sit on their hands and let anyone "take over" you are flat out wrong. We're headed into the Bermuda Triangle, no one is in control of the project until the 218 vote passes or fails and it's back in the lap of the LOCSD or it is indeed in control of the County...no mans land for now man! If the County tries to stick Los Osos with Tri-W 218 will fail and the sewer will be dead all over again.

Anonymous said...

Hi paying attention,

Gee....If the County determines that Tri-W is the least expensive option, then you will pay (a lot more $)for the privilege of not supporting it in a Prop 218 vote.

As I said, do as you please. Just do not come crying when the costs come in.

Regards, Richard LeGros

TIMECLOCK TO SEWER PROJECT TAKEOVER
29 DAYS, 11 HOURS, 25 MINUTES

Anonymous said...

Fuck.
i promised myself that i wouldn't post in here again this weekend, let alone turn on my computer.........
oh well. i did manage to take an awesome walk this morning. i love los osos.
anyway, i can't let richard get away with this lie....
Richard said:
"as I have had one sad public outburst of anger, AND
I have since happily gotten on with my life without anger"

really, Richard?

in my 9:45pm statement from last night, i comment on how much i enjoyed the fact that you were hanging out at the taxpayers watch booth at farmer's market and octoberfest. I mentioned the fact that i really do believe your association with this group cost Maria the election............

the following is my eyewitness account of an event that occured at farmer's market just weeks before the election.
deny it if you want Richard "I have fucking balls" le Gross. there were many other witness, many of whom probably decided not to vote for Maria because of the tirade that you displayed on this day......

to set the scene and the stage........picture a farmers market monday just weeks before election day.......
the events presented here are 100% true regarding this incident where Mr. Dick le Gross entered into a conflict with Chuck Cesena and Steve Senet. there were several emails circulating regarding this event and all concur regarding the facts of what transpired.............
the following is my eye witness account...........

I witnessed most of the incident. Although Mr. Le Gross refrained from using his foul language to expound on what seems to be a very apparent need to express an overcompensation regarding his lack of testicular genitalia, he did manage to use the "F" word about a dozen times over the course of a few minutes. Dick le Gross started out by asking Chuck a few questions regarding facts and numbers. Chuck had an honest answer for every question that Dick asked. Chuck's responses were crisp, adept, and most of all, truthful. Personally, I think it was the truthfulness and honesty of Chucks replies that really set Le Gross off. I think the realization that our guys actually have a chance to accomplish were Le Gross & Co. failed so miserably is what sent Le Gross over the deep end. Mr. le Gross used so many "F" words it was actually hard to articulate what he was saying. Then he started screaming at Steve demanding some sort of $1000 wager. Now, Steve has been criticized for his inhibited and reserved demeanor. But, in his own very composed and unassuming style, in response to Mr. le Gross demand for a $1000 wager, Steve snapped off a beauty. I don't remember Steve's exact response but it had something to do with Mr. le Gros' history of bankruptcy and his past failures in assuming his debts and Steve's rightful concern over being able to collect on any lost wagers from Mr' le Gros.
All in all, in the face of the demon beast, our guys handled themselves beautifully. Steve and Chuck held the high ground representing all of us with dignity and honor.


Like I said Dick, keep up the good work. having an asshole like you represent the opposition is the best thing that ever happened to "move the sewer"..........
have a nice day:)

paying attention said...

Crying? Crying to who? You?
Not a problem, I cried when you removed the trees at Tri-W and when the deer was hit by the car because he couldn't go home.
There's no more cryig Richard, the community has been burned by you and your actions so badly they will fight the Tri-W project just because it's stupid. It is impossible that it will come in lower than any other, if the analysis is done fairly...so the process better be there, I heard the County already hired Carollo Engineering, without a public hearing, so how can we watch the fair analysis?
Carollo lost out to MWH in 2000, too bad, they were working on Pismo and CMC's oxidation ditches, it would have been nice to have shared in their local experience and low cost ($1.8 and $12 million) sewer plants.

paying attention said...

Correction: CMC $16.8 and Pismo $12 million sewer plants. Oops, sorry for the typo.

Anonymous said...

Oh You Guys!!!!

You make me laugh.

I am enjoying the life of a private citizen. I can say whatever I want however I wish to display my displeasure with my elected representatives. Don't you want me to exercise my 1st amendment constiutional rights?

Oh!!! Oh!!! At the farmers market I bet Chuck and Steve $1000 that when the wastewater project was finally built that it would cost over $400 per month. THEY REFUSED to take the bet! There they were spouting off that they had a plan that would cost $156 per month.....but they obviouly had no confidence in their costs compaired to mine....they know that they will lose the bet!

I caused canidates to lose????
That's a hoot!
Gee....are you saying that if I went away that your guys would HAVE LOST and there would be a new board majority? Hmm, you obviously have little confidence in your guys!

OHHHH...My sides aching from all the hard laughter.

Snicker, Richard LeGros

TIMECLOCK TO SEWER PROJECT TAKEOVER
29 DAYS, 10 HOURS, 15 MINUTES

Joey Racano said...

Once again we are impacted by foul mouthed fools who cannot stick to rational speculation and offer strictly personal attacks. I have done this in the past, but since I am sober, it will not happen again.

Thanks Richard for the quotation on the law. At least this is real. As soon as the exact nature of the financial losses to the community comes out through audits, from whomever, there will have to be criminal charges filed. They will have to come from Jerry Brown, AG.
When the damages to the property owners are revealed, there will be such a public outcry that the charges will HAVE to be filed. They deserve to be in jail: they never listened to me.

It seems that people always blame their leaders regardless of how they voted. They even blame someone like me who wanted the only reasonable solution. The ABC plan would have taken care of all of this. We need a regional solution, only then can the cost be spread out and federal funds found.

FBLeG said...

TIMECLOCK TO RLG's NEXT RANT

29 SECONDS, 369 MILLISECONDS, 469,321 NANOSECONDS

Anonymous said...

Richard... I will take you up on your bet... on two conditions.

I will bet you $1000 that if the sewer is build anywhere BUT Tri-W it will cost less than $400 per month.

I actually believe it will cost much less, but you named the amount.

What I don't trust, is your and your groups corruptable influence over the agencies involvement in this project to date... thus the stipulation on NON-Tri-W projects only.

And second, that the loser make payment after the plant comes online and the first month's bills are issued... I want to make sure the monthly amount is a fact and not an inflated or deflated estimate based on the whims of whichever firm happens to be bidding on the contract.

Both conditions seem fair and I am sure you will have no problem stipulating to them.

So, there's the bet... $1000 that a non Tri-W project will cost less than your offered amont of $400.

Accept this bet here and I will identify myself and draw up something in writing that we both can sign.

Anxously awaiting your response...

FBLeG said...

TIMECLOCK TO RLG's ACCEPTANCE OF BET OFFERED ABOVE

3 DECADES, 4 YEARS, 234 DAYS

TIMECLOCK TO RLG DROPPING THE F-BOMB AFTER READING BET ABOVE

456 NANOSECONDS

Anonymous said...

LeGros, you have been wanting a response to your charges... here it is.

You seem to have a problem that money was borrowed without the board agendizing and voting on it...

That also appears to be a requirement of the crime...

If the board would have voted to do something illegal then you may have something.

What about this scenario... the interim general manager innappropriately acts without authority... and then the board fires him.

Seems that would protect them to a degree.

With that being said, I am not agreeing that what they did was illegal. I don't have enough information to make that decision.

What I do know is that your board took out a loan that appeared to be illegal and noone chose to act on that... You claimed it was a legal loan but then the state refused to reiisue the loan unless we had a 218 vote. Now the county insists on a 218 vote as well.

If that loan were truly legal, why do we now need a 218 vote??

It seems to me that legal and illegal are grey areas and open to interpretation.

I'm sure we will soon find out how your charges against the current CSD board are interpretted... until then, maybe you shold be careful in your allegations and predictions... you don't have such a good track record in those areas and risk emabrrassing yourself... again.

Anonymous said...

It is impossible for the government to require us to pay $400 a month for a sewer. No 218 vote will ever pass. Nobody can afford this. The sewer will have to cost according to affordability studies, if it does not, the question will go to the Supreme Court. At that time the question of "unfunded mandates" will be revisited along with County and State liability. There are constitutional provisions for property rights. If this happens, it will be ten years before a sewer is built at any site. Besides, the LOCSD will be long gone by that time. The state will have to pass a special bond to take care of this situation for property owners statewide.

Anonymous said...

If Richard accepts the bet, he should agree that if he wins, the $1000 would go to pay LAFCO.

Or better yet, one of the creditors he stiffed in his own bankruptcy.

Mike Green said...

To anon, "yourself... again."
Dang, took the words out of my mouth,
my only fear I have, is that the laws of recusal may come in to play just when it would hurt the most!
That is the fear of kneecapping, you don't recover in time, even if the deed was legit!

Mike Green said...

If anyone is donating bet money, the best place is the PZLDF.

Anonymous said...

Mike Green said...
To anon, "yourself... again."
Dang, took the words out of my mouth,
my only fear I have, is that the laws of recusal may come in to play just when it would hurt the most!
That is the fear of kneecapping, you don't recover in time, even if the deed was legit!

Mike, I'm a pretty sharp guy... but I'm not sure what you are saying here... can you clarify?

Anonymous said...

Hi Anon 3:19 - If you are saying that you will take my bet if the treament plant is built anywhere other than Tri-W, and the cost will be less than $400 / month, then the bet is on. Waiting to hear from you.

Hi fbleg: your timeclock is off.

Hi Anon 3:56 - The SRF loan procured by the old board was 100% legal. We now need a 218 vote because if we want SRF money, the State will no longer allow Los Osos to get it based upon a revenue plan promising to repay via rates. ie, the State does not trust Los Osos.

Hi Anon 4:00 - In California law, the POLLUTER (in this case, you if you live in the PZ) pays for the cleanup of the pollution. Sorry you do not like my projected cost; but you will have to pay. If we do not build the sewer now, the State will and send Los Osos the bill.

Hi Anon 4:01 - I do not owe LAFCO one dime. However, I will donate the $1000 to the Low Income Assistance Trust Fund to help my friends.

Regards, Richard LeGros

TIMECLOCK TO SEWER PROJECT TAKEOVER
29 DAYS, 07 HOURS, 22 MINUTES

Mike Green said...

Sure, I'll try, If the rantings of Richard prove to have the least desireable outcome for the CSD board, then 4 of the 5 members might have to recuse themselves from negotiations with creditors in the bankruptcy hearings. they would have a conflict of interest if giving opinion because they personaly would be under investigation for the bankrutcy itself.

If I still dont make sense, I'm sorry.

This is speculation of the highest order by the way, I'm going to wait and see.

Richard dose not have a very good track record on predicting what will happen.

Anonymous said...

Hi Mike,,

Let's see....

How was my June 6 prediction that the CSD would declare bankruptcy by late August?

I also predicted that the CSD would default on the CDF FEE and the Bond.....but the CSD managed to avoid those defaults by ILLEGALLY BORROWING $1,475,000 (having had already illegally spent the tax and bond payment revenue!). Dang, I was wrong.

So far, pretty good predicting...not perfect...but I will try harder.

Mike, do you have any predictions about the future of the CSD?

Regards, Richard LeGros

FBLeG said...

RLG says,

"Hi fbleg: your timeclock is off."

OK, I'll recalibrate and service timeclock as needed.

RLG says, "Hi Anon 3:19 - If you are saying that you will take my bet if the treament plant is built anywhere other than Tri-W, and the cost will be less than $400 / month, then the bet is on. Waiting to hear from you."

Let's be careful here. As I understand the bet:

RLG wins $1000 if all of the following conditions hold:

(1) Sewer plant is built at a location other than Tri-W
(2) The cost per month to the property owner is greater than or equal to $400/month
(3) The monthly cost is verified

Anon wins $1000 if all of the following conditions hold:

(1) Sewer plant is built at a location other than Tri-W
(2) The cost per month to the property owner is less than $400/month
(3) The monthly cost is verified

No one wins if the sewer plant is built at Tri-W.

RLG, is this the bet you are accepting?

Note: For the sake of clarity, I think if the parties entertain this agreement that the method by which the monthly cost is calculated be made very explicit. Are we including hook-up fees, septic tank decommission, etc. or just the amortized obligation of each property owner of the PZ required to pay off the fixed and ongoing costs of the sewer system. Of course, the amortization period needs to be spelled out also.

Anonymous said...

Fbleg,

Fair nuff.

I bet $1000 with Anon 3:19

I win if the actual cost per month to the owner of single family residence within the PZ who did not prepay the 2001 bond....is at or greater than $400 per month.

The monthly costs are to include the the propety owners share of;
a. All costs to design, permit and purchase needed land, right-of-ways, and legal expenses of a new project
b. Costs for building the treatment plant (any configuration)at any location other than Tri-W....AND
c. Costs for building any type of collection system taht serves the entire PZ...AND
d. Costs for building any type of disposal system.....AND
e. The monthly costs to operate, maintain and provide for a replacement fund (OM&R)of b, c and d above... AND
f. Includes the costs to the property owner for his/her share of abandoning the Tri-W plan.

The monthly costs do not need include the property owners private cost to connect to the project.

Anon 3:19 wins if the monthly cost to the owner of a single family residences is less than $400, including the costs of a thru f above.

If Tri-W is built upon, the bet is off. I predict that if The Tri-W project is reactivated using the original contractor, the monthly costs will be around $250 per homeowner of a single family residence.

I hope this clears up any concerns,

Regards, Richard LeGros

Anonymous said...

PS. One more point. The monthly cost does not include the effect of any Federal or State Grant money injected into the project.

If such money does come into a new project, the bet is void (my costs projections are based on no influx of grant money from the Federal or State government.

Regards, Richard LeGros

Shark Inlet said...

Oh my ...

Go and watch one football game on TV and some million comments happen.

If I have any say in the bet (and I don't) I would specify that the cost/month should correspond to the 20 year timeframe which would correspond nicely to the TriW SRF loan period. I would also suggest that inflation be factored out by using the CPI ... after all, fair is fair.


And, if our FLF's (foul language friend) account of the farmer's market exchange is accurate, I would suggest that Steve Senet was far more out of line than Richard. The usage of four letter words is far more forgivable than bringing up the sins of one's opponent in such a discussion. Sadly, I used to view Steve as a man of integrity. This report and his promotion of the $154/month Ripley plan as if it were accurate make me view him as either very unwise or very unethical.


In any case, it would seem to me that Richard's bet is a fair one ... because to me it seems as if $400/month is about the likely cost should a site other than TriW be chosen.


As for our friend who tells us that $400/month cannot happen because of some sort of affordability or unfunded mandate argument ... bull.

To suggest there is an unfunded mandate here is simply silly. It was some million years ago that the mandate was given to clean up the water in Los Osos and it is fair to say that there have been several opportunities to actually get the job done for a far more reasonable cost than the $200/month of TriW. Many of those opportunities were funded in large part by the Federal government. Los Osos residents at the time were just to short sighted to take advantage of the awesome opportunity to get the feds to pay nearly all the costs. The idea that a sewer cannot be built unless it is affordable is simply wishful thinking. There is no legislation anywhere that says that the costs of living somewhere must be lower than the ability of people to pay. Affordability has been a red herring every time it has been mentioned by those who oppose TriW. Even if were were to do an affordability study to qualify for some federal and state grants, the total amount of the grants wouldn't cover the inflation during the time period necessary to do the studies.

Yes the sewer will be unaffordable. Why? Because we turned down the first three County plans, because we formed a CSD, because CCLO and CASE sued to delay TriW and because of the recall.

Do we deserve these increases? That I don't know, but it would seem that we do keep asking for higher costs.

Anonymous said...

Hi Sharkinlet,

Hope your ball team won!

Shark is right
added conditions

1. The bet is based upon a 20 year payback period of the SRF loan. For every ten year increase in the payback period of the SRF loan, deduct $40 per month from the $400 per month figure.

b. If a Step-Stag system is used, the costs per month are to include the homewoner cost to remove and REPLACE the tank, costs to operate the tank pumps and connect it to the sewer. If a Gravity sewer is used, include the costs to abandon the septic tank and conntect to the sewer.

c. As for inflatin, it do not see how it can be factored out of the cost. Any ideas?

Regards, Richard LeGros

Anonymous said...

This is the potential wagerer against Richard,

Nice how I added two very simple condidtions and you come back with a laundry list of them... typical.

I am inclined to still take the bet, but I want to think about it for a few minutes...

And maybe read some more discussion about it...

I will post again soon.

Signed,

Sure Bet

Anonymous said...

Richard,

Please itemize what you think this entails:

f. Includes the costs to the property owner for his/her share of abandoning the Tri-W plan.

Signed, Sure Bet

Anonymous said...

Richard said... "PS. One more point. The monthly cost does not include the effect of any Federal or State Grant money injected into the project."

Don't try and weasle out of the bet... this one's a deal breaker and you know it.

Just because your board was absolutley inept when it came to getting free funding doesn't mean I can't benefit if those in charge now can.

I'm wondering why you want to include this... are you afraid that if we get something like Ripley's project built out of town that it will be easier to get funding??

The fact is that your project was not eligable for free funding and grants because it was not new technology or cutting-edge... it wasn't forward thinking, and your board never conducted an affordibility study.

All these things are planned for the new project and could result in funding. If that happens and it lowers the monthly bills then it sure was a smart thing to move the sewer wasnt it?

Therefore, we will include grants and federal funding for the purposes of this bet. But keep in mind the determining factor of the bet is the first bill... so any funding that comes after the first bill will not be a factor.

Signed, Sure Bet

Anonymous said...

LeGros said... "b. If a Step-Stag system is used, the costs per month are to include the homewoner cost to remove and REPLACE the tank, costs to operate the tank pumps and connect it to the sewer. If a Gravity sewer is used, include the costs to abandon the septic tank and conntect to the sewer."

I will agree to the following:

1. The cost of a new (average or standard) tank, and the installation cost.

I will not agree to the disposal of the tank.

2. I will agree to the cost to decommission the tank.

3. I will agree to the cost to hook-up to the system.

I will NOT agree to the cost to run the pump.

The two things I will not agree to involve too many variables and are not fair conditions.

But here is the sticking point here... to be fair... if these expenses are paid by the CSD and are part of the monthly bill then they count as such, if they are paid by the homeowner then they will be calculated as follows:

Take the total "normal/standard" cost and calculate that amortized over the length of the sewer construction loan at the interest rate of the sewer construction loan. Add that monthly amount to the monthly sewer bill.

My reasoning: I know some people wont be able to finance this over a 20 year period but some will pay it off all up front and some will pay it off with a short term loan... and some will roll it into a home equity line of credit and some may work it into a refinance of their homeloan. There is no way to know what everyone's monthly cost of this will be... so my comprimise it the suggested method above.

Richard, can you agree to this?

Signed, Sure Bet

Anonymous said...

AH, Sure Bet above,

The old board has been approved to receive $35,000,000 on the current WRDA act for the Tri-W project by both houses of congress; and was awaiting the president's signature for dispursement. But now that there is NO PROJECT, the federal government will take the $35 mil for Los Osos off the bill. It took me, the old board, Bruce Buel and Lois Capps YEARS to get that appropriation.

Also, The old Board back in 2001 been on that year's WRDA act for $65 million....but as the project was delayed by lawsuit after lawsuit, the Los Osos appropriation was taken out of that bill too.

As for the new board getting a grant, they cannot for they DO NOT HAVE A PROJECT; and they are out of the waste water business anyway.

Sooooo Sure Bet, want to restate your thoughts on how inept the old board was about getting grants now that you know the facts?

Regards, Richard LeGros

Anonymous said...

I offer this up for the sake of discussion...

I'm not sure how I feel about "If the plant is built at Tri-W, all bets are off."

The reason I offered the condition that a Non-Tri-W plant would cost less than $400 is because I believe the plan at Tri-W is the reason this project is unaffordable in the first place. Any plant built at Tri-W, whether last year or ten years from now will surly eventually cost more than $400 per month.

I believe if the plant is built out of town it will be less than $400. That is what you wanted to bet, so let’s stay in the spirit of that idea.

However, if somehow you are able to lobby to get Tri-W built that does not mean that the out of town plant would not have been cheaper. Your board never had price as its primary concern, so I do not believe that if the plant ends up at Tri-W it will be because it is cheaper.

How do we work that into the bet?

You are convinced Tri-W will be less than $250 per month. Let’s propose the bet like this:

A non-Tri-W project: Over $400 you win, under $400 I win.

A Tri-W Project: Over $250 I win, under $250 you win. (This amount is negotiable, let’s hear your proposal)

My sticking points... and these issues go beyond the bet. They go to the crux of why the Tri-W plan sucked to begin with.

1. The cost of disposal. I am assuming you are talking about "water disposal" (I will address sludge disposal in a moment). The Tri-W plan includes the cost of Broderson and we get a benefit for that...namely a 10% recharge of the lower aquifer. Most of the water there is actually "disposal" hence you using that word to describe it. The rest of that water will flow under Los Osos toward the bay and either reach the bay or be pumped from harvest wells and recirculated through the plant and re-disposed of at Broderson, or dumped directly into the bay via discharge pipes.

Here's my concern... anything else that is required in the future should the Tri-W plan be realized would add additional expense.. such as injection wells to stop salt water intrusion, purple pipe or ag exchange (if later you are not allowed to pump to the bay, additional treatment may be required in the future before recharge into the groundwater is allowed).

If the out of town plant includes these items as “EXTRAS that should have been included in the Tri-W plan” then it is not an apples to apples comparison.

So you have potentially added to the bet the cost of items that are not now, and never were, invisioned for the Los Osos sewer project, that may get tagged onto the new out of town project as a forward-looking watershed-wide approach. These EXTRAS could push the price over $400 a month and STILL cost less than a Tri-W plan with the same future added capability.

Discussion: Is it fair to include the costs of these EXTRAS if they are built with the out of town project, but not to include them in the cost of the Tri-W project because they are not planned for.

2. OM&R Costs: again, same argument as above. I don’t believe these costs were accurately evaluated with the Tri-W plan, so is it fair to include them if an out of town plant is built. Discuss.

3. Sludge disposal. What if an out of town plant includes sludge composting capabilites. That would be a capital cost worked into the monthly bill. But that expense would disappear in 20 years. At Tri-W we were having our sludge hauled to Santa Maria for a continuous, non-stop expense. Also, this is something that could increase in cost dramatically in the near future… how is that factored into the initial monthly bill?

Tri-W involves many deferred costs… by deferring these costs you can artificially lower the initial monthly bill… but in the near future it could jump considerably. The out of town plan could include EVERYTHING needed from day one… and could take care of Los Osos well into the future. The same could not be said for Tri-W.

4. The length of the loan payback. This is non-negotiable. Maybe a longer loan payback period will make the items above a wash. I will not agree to any deductions or additions based on the length of the loan.

Let's all discuss these issues and come to a concensus... I'd love to get our signatures on this.

Wouldn't it be great if we could agree on something?

Signed, Sure Bet

Anonymous said...

Richard said... "As for the new board getting a grant, they cannot for they DO NOT HAVE A PROJECT; and they are out of the waste water business anyway."

Then you should have no problem allowing grant funding in our little bet??

Do we agree?

Signed, Sure Bet

Anonymous said...

Richard said... "As for the new board getting a grant, they cannot for they DO NOT HAVE A PROJECT; and they are out of the waste water business anyway."

Then you should have no problem allowing grant funding in our little bet??

Do we agree?

Signed, Sure Bet

Anonymous said...

That bill allowed for Los Osos to receive a "portion" of $35,000,000 with no guarantees we would get anything.

So don't rewrite history, and act like you got us $35 million.

You guys never realized that once you increased the SRF and fully funded the project that noone was ever going to give you grant money.

Grant money is given to those that need it... those that have a shortfall in funding.

Grant money is given so a project can be built, not after a project is already built.(Can you even give me an example of a public works project around the size of our that received grant money AFTER it was built? If you can I'd love to read their grant application.)

We were fully funded. We broke ground... we were never going to see that $35 million.

That reminds me... wasn't one of the missions of Save the Dream to seek grant funding. Didn't Jan DiLeo state at the podium that they had a grant writing team.

Do you know if they ever wrote a grant?

Was this the same team that wrote the RWQCB on September 28, 2005? Maybe they got distracted with that.

Anonymous said...

Sure bet,

Let's make this easy,

WE agree that there are many unknown costs to the property owner depending upon the type of collection system used. So lets take the property owner costs to connect out. But in doing so, we will reduce the $400 / month number to $350/month.

So, here it goes:

I win if the actual cost per month to the owner of single family residence within the PZ who did not prepay the 2001 bond....is at or greater than $350 per month.

The monthly costs are to include the the propety owners share of;
a. All costs to design, permit and purchase needed land, right-of-ways, and legal expenses of a new project
b. Costs for building the treatment plant (any configuration)at any location other than Tri-W....AND
c. Costs for building any type of collection system that serves the entire PZ...AND
d. Costs for building any type of disposal system.....AND
e. The monthly costs to operate, maintain and provide for a replacement fund (OM&R)of b, c and d above... AND
f. Includes the costs to the property owner for his/her share of abandoning the Tri-W plan. To clarify, if Tri-W is abandoned , you work in the costs of the 2001 assessment bond jettisoned, the costs owed contractors who worked on the old project, cost to pay back the State the SRF's $6,400,000 with interest ba, the costs to reimburse those that prepaid the 2001 assessment bond, and the costs to pay the CSD fines levied by the SRWQCB.


1) The monthly costs do not need include the property owners private cost to connect to the project.
2) The monthly cost of $350 / month does not include the effect of any Federal or State Grant money injected into a new project. If Federal or State monies are acquired, the bet is off.
3) If Tri-W is built upon, the bet is off.


Anon 3:19 (aka Sure Bet)wins if the monthly cost to the owner of a single family residences is less than $350, including the costs of a thru f above, with the exceptions 1 & 2 listed.


I hope this clears up any concerns.

Wanna take the bet or not?

Regards, Richard LeGros

Anonymous said...

Sure bet,

You are SOOOO WRONG about the $35 million in the WRDA act.

WE were finally listed as an actual APPROVED project......we were "in" the groove and ready to receive grant money.

Grants are not given for non-existant projects or just those that need money to figure out a project. The applicants have to have a real project that is ready to go or under construction.

Also, the fact that we had a SRF loan did not disqualify Los Osos from receiving WRDA grant money. If anything, it validated that Los Osos was ready and willing to build.

Additionally, seems like the current boards grant writing committee has failed...they do not have a project upon which to apply for grants upon. Also, as the CSD is out of the wastewater business, they are out of the wastewater grant-writing buiness too.

Just wanted you to know,

Regards, Richard LeGros

Anonymous said...

Nope, too many last minute added conditions on your part.

Make it simple.

What does the first sewer bill for a single family residence say?

What is the sewer portion of the tax bill for a single family residence for the first full year the sewer is online. Divide that by 12.

Add the two together and that's the monthly bill.

I win if it's under $400
You win if it's over $400

The bet is for $1000

If the plant is built on Tri-W, the bet is off.

That's the bet.

You interested?

Signed, Sure Bet

Anonymous said...

Sure bet,

Do you not find it odd that we are discussing future monthly project costs that vastly exceed the $200 monthly cost of Tri-W if it had not been stopped?

And for the record, the old project did replenish the aquifer, had an affect upon stopping salt water intrusion, stabilzed our water supply and with water conservation measures got us very close to meeting our water needs at full buildout, maintained existing wetlands, stopped a million gallon a day spill of inadequately-treated wastewater, avoided CDO's for the community, had a component to have people outside the PZ to pay into the cost of the wastewater system via SSMP fees, was reclaiming water for the benefit of all users in the CSD; hence the CSD was working towards sewer rate payers seeing a financial gain from "selling" the reclaimed water to Cal Cities.......so do not waste my time talking about "defered costs" for they did not exist.

So anyway, you have my bet. Take it. I'm game !

Regards, Richard LeGros

Anonymous said...

Sure bet,

Your bet will not work.

The only sewer cost collected on the tax roles at this time is the $256/year for the bond payment. Under the old project, the county was only going to collect the rate payer's SRF loan payment on behalf of the CSD (around $1600/year)

My bet is as I listed. What you are asking is a sucker bet at those numbers ($400/month), for it does not include the bulk of costs of a new project.

As I stated before, I have clarified the bet and am ready to go.

Regards, Richard LeGros

Anonymous said...

Hi All - Please confirm how you know that the 35m through Capps is "gone." As far as I know, it is to be voted on for A PROJECT, not necessarily a TRIW project. The vote has not even come up yet. This is not to say we'll get the money, as we all know the feds have spent all of our money fighting in Iraq, but, I don't think it's truthful to say that the new board lost the 35m. We never had it to begin with.

Sincerely,

Hanging out with Grants Committee

Anonymous said...

Richard, I do think its odd we are talking about $400/month.

But arent you the one that brought it up? It was your idea to bet Steve and/or Chuck that amount.

Don't act like I have conceded that the out of town sewer will cost $400... that is your projection.

Now that I want to take you up on it, you have added all of these "rules".

ANY costs associated with the sewer will be billed two ways... fees and taxes.

ALL fees will appear on a sewer bill.

ALL taxes will appear on one's property tax bill.

There is no other way for them to get your money, so ALL expenses (new project, old project, fines, etc.) will have to be paid for out of sewer related revenue generated through fees and taxes.

So again... Here is the bet:

What does the first sewer bill for a single family residence say?

What is the sewer portion of the tax bill for a single family residence for the first full year the sewer is online. Divide that by 12.

Add the two together and that's the monthly bill.

I win if it's under $400
You win if it's over $400

The bet is for $1000

If the plant is built on Tri-W, the bet is off.

That's the bet.

Are you going to step up to the plate? Remember, the bet was your idea.

Let me know...

Signed, Sure Bet

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Hi All - Please confirm how you know that the 35m through Capps is "gone."

Richard doesn't know anything... he pulls shit out of his ass all the time.

I don't even listen to him... he has no credibility.

Anonymous said...

Yup, that's why he was recalled.

FBLeG said...

Just got timeclock back from repair shop - found out it was running fine after all.

By the way, if this bet thing ever gets agreed upon, can someone post a PDF of the signed agreement to this blog. It will certainly be a document of great historical import. I can already envision it withered, yellow with age, ink barely discernible, preserved in a glass argon-filled case dutifully lowered each night 20 feet into a vault just inches above our nitrate free aquifer and directly below the Los Osos Modern History Museum of Effluent and Septage (which, incidentally, did receive a sizable grant for its construction from the SWRCB). The CCC even signed off on this one once it was determined by landslide vote that such a museum was a "strongly held community value".

Unfortunately, what's not so clear is the identity of the curator - there are so many qualified candidates. And,
as a sad aside, a community pool was overwhelmingly rejected by the voters for the third time.

Anonymous said...

I've got to hand it to you fbleg, you have some writing prose. You're ability to go from vulgar to stand-up is impressive. Much like myself, knowing when and to whom I may use my foul language.
Sincerely, M

Knows LeGros said...

Le Gros says: "Hi Anon 4:01 - I do not owe LAFCO one dime. However, I will donate the $1000 to the Low Income Assistance Trust Fund to help my friends."

While you're promising money to people Richard, why don't you pay Richard Margetson off for your boogus restraining order/lawsuit that backfired ("I fear for my life and my family.") and while your at it, pony up to the $300 promise you made to the LOCSD Park and Recreation Fund in 2002?

COUNTDOWN to pay off of any of those creditors ... not holding my breath!

Get's my Goat said...

Shark,
the mandate is NOT to clean up the water, not to build a sewer or any other of the such. The mandate is "prohibition of discharge". So pee in a bucket and drive it to Santa Margartia by camel train, you are in compliance.
The battle of the years is HOW do we all stop discharging. And what is the best way to reuse the wastewater...cleaned up and reharged or lesser cleaned and reused by farmers or a little or a lot of both. the science is just catching up to the question, we now know Broderson can't handle the volume of recharge and we were ona path to build a sewer system that would need major tweaking before it was even turned on...costing millions more.
Let's not hear "mandate" used that way again, use it correctly and you will have more credibility.

Knows LeGros said...

Le Gros said: "had a component to have people outside the PZ to pay into the cost of the wastewater system via SSMP fees".
Yeah, $2 per month, two dollars per month, dos US dollars (George Washington's) per month! Thanks for the help Cabrillo and others.

Anonymous said...

Sure Bet,

I am confident that any new WWTP NOT USING the Tri-W property for the treament plant site will result in monthly costs to the property owner (of a Single Family Residence) of $400 per month.

I have already done the cost analysis of such a project (Ripley)

I am basing my bet on said analysis using certain ssumptions, which are;

-ASSUME AB 2701 ENACTED SEPTEMBER, 2006
-ASSUME NEW STATE SRF LOAN @ 2.7%, 20 YEAR TERM
-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 REPAID THROUGH SEWER PROJECT MONTHLY FEES FOR FIRST 5 YEARS OF SEWER PLANT OPERATION (2015 TO 2020)

I will provide you a copy of the analysis (see next post. Expand the blog to maximum for easier reading)

After you review the analysis, You can either acept or reject the bet bet.

To be honest, you will lose the bet. If you really study the costs that must be paid for with a new project while paying off the old project, and take into account that the costs that Ripley gave (which I used in the analysis) are just PRELIMINARY estimates and therefore LOW by atleast 50%, I am confidenct that you will see that I am offereing you a sucker bet.

So, I leave it to you. I will not be offering this bet again.

Regards, Richard LeGros

Anonymous said...

ANALYSIS OF COSTS OF RIPLEY-PACIFIC PROJECT
• ASSUME AB 2701 ENACTED SEPTEMBER, 2006
• ASSUME NEW STATE SRF LOAN @ 2.7%, 20 YEAR TERM
• 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

Anonymous said...

Hummm....Speaking of Corruption, Suspision and curiosity, I wonder what was in those files that were stolen from the CSD office at Sunnyside when it was broke into right after the previous CSD got recalled. Why was it broke into right after the recall? Sounds like desperation to cover some condemning information.

Anonymous said...

I have accepted the bet...

You keep trying to add conditions and "assumptions"

So again... Here is the bet:

What does the first sewer bill for a single family residence say?

What is the sewer portion of the tax bill for a single family residence for the first full year the sewer is online. Divide that by 12.

Add the two together and that's the monthly bill.

I win if it's under $400
You win if it's over $400

The bet is for $1000

If the plant is built on Tri-W, the bet is off.

That's the bet.

Are you going to step up to the plate? Remember, the bet was your idea.

Let me know...

Signed, Sure Bet

Anonymous said...

Sure Bet,

My last post made it very clear as to the bet and the conditons of that bet. I even provided the cost analysis I did last August to help you decide.

That is the bet. There is no other.

You may accept or decline the bet.
I will not accept any other bet other than the one I have proposed.

Regards, Richard LeGros

PS: Do you have observations or reccommendations about the cost analysis. I will gladly modify it if you see any cause and report back to you as to the results of the alterations.

Shark Inlet said...

"get's my goat" suggests that there is no relation between the prohibition on discharges and the nitrates. By lack of mentioning saltwater intrusion he suggests that we don't have a problem with that either.

Without solving the nitrate and saltwater intrusion problems ... and quickly ... we are going to have to pay for state water as well as a horribly priced sewer.

Once further study suggested Broderson couldn't handle 100% of the recharge, the plans changed a bit to use some of the treated wastewater for irrigation. Is this a problem? Is this a bad thing? With some minor fiddling costing "millions more" we solve a few problems ... on the other hand, the current board, by stopping the project for a project they say is environmentally superior has caused at least 600 million gallons of additional septic discharge directly into our ground at an increase in cost of at least $12M.

On issues of costs and environmental sense the TriW plan was superior to to what has happened since the recall.

Anonymous said...

Now we are known as "Los Osos:the town that can't agree on shit". We used to be "Fog-Osos". Is that slur valid anymore?

Anonymous said...

A little history lesson. Does anyone know the origin of "el oso grosso"?

Anonymous said...

Richard, you are a weasel.

I never expected you to take the bet... even though you were the one that offered it up.

Here is the exact quote

Oh!!! Oh!!! At the farmers market I bet Chuck and Steve $1000 that when the wastewater project was finally built that it would cost over $400 per month. THEY REFUSED to take the bet! There they were spouting off that they had a plan that would cost $156 per month.....but they obviouly had no confidence in their costs compaired to mine....they know that they will lose the bet!"

1:47 PM, December 02, 2006


So I took you up on that bet and then you backtrack and come up with a list of "conditions". You had more conditions than the Coastal Commission placed on your Tri-W project.

You're a weasel that weasels out out of bets.

Why would I want to bet you anyway... you'd probably weasel out of paying... or file bankruptcy.

If you are so sure of your claims why won't you stand behind them?

Signed, Sure Bet

Shark Inlet said...

I hardly think it fair to require Richard to bet according to your interpretation of his words just like I wouldn't expect you to necessarily agree to his terms exactly.

To me it seems that Richard's terms are fair and quite reasonable ... perhaps that is how I was interpreting his water to start with.

The essence of his wager is this ... if we are to go with an "out of town" plant will it cost more than TriW? If you think not, his terms are very reasonable.

Anonymous said...

Ok Sure bet,

I based my bet upon upon the cost analysis I performed in Auguest. I even told you it was a sucker bet because my analysis is as true as a prediction as is possible at this point in time.

Do you accept or not? I have made the conditions clear to you.

Regards, Richard LeGros

PS: To make your decision easier, I promise I will not read anything into your decision one way or another.

Anonymous said...

Read into my decision all you want. There is nothing to read into... I can't say it any plainer...

YOU WILL NOT ACCEPT MY OFFER TO TAKE YOUR ORIGINAL BET without your weasely dozen conditions...

I mean, give me a break... You won't include grants and federal funding that could lower the monthly sewer bill??

What if we got the whole thing paid for... and there was no monthly bill at all... a free sewer!!! Under your terms I could still lose the bet.

You never made it clear how you would count court settlements, fines that were reduced and/or applied to the project. Under your conditions you could count fines twice!!

Everyone that has read this knows that my bet is fair and you are weasling out of it.

If my bet is not fair, you tell me which part is not...

Do you agree that every sewer related expense will have to be paid for by those sewer customers located in the PZ?

If you agree to that, do you agree that the only way to charge them for these expenses is through taxes and fees?

Can't these fees and taxes be calculated on a monthly basis?

Why do you need all of your conditions??

Wont the fees and taxes cover the entire cost of the sewer project?

If not, can you explain to me what would not be included in the fees and taxes?

Anxiously awaiting your weasly response...

Signed, Sure Bet

Anonymous said...

Sure Bet,

So your answer is NO.

Fine.

Regards, Richard LeGros

Anonymous said...

Weasel

Anonymous said...

Sure Bet,

My Bet, My Terms, Very Reasonable

All you have to do is say yes or no.

Regards, Richard LeGros

PS: If Sure Bet does not want to take the bet, I will welcome

Anonymous said...

Oops...

PS: If Sure Bet does not want to take the bet, I will welcome another person accepting it.

Regards, Richard LeGros

Clara Fication. said...

Sure Bet,
FYI, the Coastal Development Permit's 79 condiditions came with the County's approval, the other 4 were added by the Coastal Commission. But, to place blame, just read the EIR, Crawford, Multari & Clark worded the mitigation measures as such that there was no getting out of the most onerous #34 and #76, the LOCSD didn't fight and the vacant propoerty owners are screwed!

gets my goat said...

Shark,
You misunderstand the word "mandate", that's all.
To build a great sewer system that recharges the aquifer,includes irrigation/reuse and conservation and protect ESHA and archeology...that's the trick...bacause it all costs money which is more than what other community sewers do...that's what makes it all so hard to swallow.
The pollution to the upper aquifer is of concern, but come on, do you really think the recall caused more than the actual sewer would have, Cleath estimated the nitrates would actually rise when the system went in for some years, we may not see a downtrend in nitrates, soon, if ever..."30 years" was quoted Sorrell Marks.

Shark Inlet said...

Well, let's think a bit about nitrates. If we delay getting the nitrates out of our discharge we'll add nitrates into the system. Whether ag-exchange or TriW, the nitrate levels in the aquifer will continue to rise as Tim says ... but for each additional year we delay the solution is an additional year of rising nitrates. We're already at the federal "safe" limit so it would seem unwise to continue delaying the solution.

No matter, the costs are what this is all about. The folks in our community want the cheapest reasonable solution and voted for the Recall and recently for Chuck and Steve to be re-elected because they were promising a cheaper plan.

Fancy ag-exchange is cool. Ponding is cool. A park is cool. Doing something good for the environment is cool. Having to pay a whole lot more to do those things is not cool.

Shark Inlet said...

Hey Sewer Wonks...

I forget ... what was the date of the meeting where the board discussed and voted on the new budget for the year (the budget that needs to pass muster with the bankruptcy judge)? When did that same budget go to the finance committee?

Thanks...

Anonymous said...

Hi Ann - I love the "Joe Sparkian spirit of cooperation" reference. You may have coined a phrase here! It has much better stickability than "Jesus Sparks" (remember that one?) And ya know what? If the spirit comes to fruition in Los Osos I say Hallelujah! I think he will be a great addition to the current board.

Anonymous said...

Joe will be a very good influence on the board. No doubt the whole community is excited with his election. Good luck!

Regards, Richard LeGros

Churadogs said...

Inlet sez:'On your claims about the implication of the Cleath and Ripley reports ... I've talked with Cleath about this and you are incorrect. Even if only 10% of the recharged water makes it to the lower aquifer, with water blending (and the fact that our primary aquifer recharge is rainwater, not septic, there would be a huge benefit to the saltwater intrusion problem. "

In the public presentation of the Ripley Plan, the "Water Experts" stated that by the time any water does make its way down, the salt-water intrusion would have reached the east so that any "clean" water would go into the salt water and so be wasted. The Ripley Water Guys need to sit down and talk with Cleath. Clearly, they have a disagreement over what will happen. Ditto on the impact of in-lieu pumping/ag use, which Ripley says woul dhave an immediate impact on salt water intrusion. So, seems to me those folks need to, uh, "discuss."

Anonymous said...

Hopefully Joe will encorage a spirit of cooperation and compromise, something I think was seriously lacking in the old board and that could be brought out in this board. They have shown some willingness to compromise here and there. Might I suggest both sides ditch much of the litigation? If someone would just get that started we could get to the business at hand. In honor of Joe's election, I propose we start with the CSD dropping their Measure B case, and with Joyce and her friends dropping the personnal suits against the directors.

*PG-13 said...

I think our problem is pretty obvious. Dang, we can't even get a bet down on a sewer much less build one. Even placing a bet ends in name-calling and, ultimately, no bet. Go figure.

Mike Green said...

pg! That has got to be a record short post from you!
It's also one of the best!
Kudos!

gets my goat said...

Shark,
Nitrates are not rising, they are stable since development is stayed. The nitrates do fluctuate from year to year, they their trend fluctuates with rainfall.

Shark Inlet said...

You say that nitrates are stable. Others say they are rising.

Sounds like one of those arguments over whether global warming is occurring or not.

What makes you think that the levels haven't been going up? Perhaps you should forward your logic to the RWQCB who (at the ACL hearings) pointed out the recent increases and to Tim Cleath who believes that nitrates are going up.

If they are stable, we don't have to worry as much about the continued pollution of our upper aquifer. On the other hand, costs are still going up, so there might still be good reason to move forward as quickly as possible.

Churadogs said...

Inlet sYou say that nitrates are stable. Others say they are rising.

Sounds like one of those arguments over whether global warming is occurring or not.

What makes you think that the levels haven't been going up? Perhaps you should forward your logic to the RWQCB who (at the ACL hearings) pointed out the recent increases and to Tim Cleath who believes that nitrates are going up.

If they are stable, we don't have to worry as much about the continued pollution of our upper aquifer. On the other hand, costs are still going up, so there might still be good reason to move forward as quickly as possible."

If I understood right from Rob Miller's last report on the well data, the average nitrates for the whole pz are .04 over state levels. Some wells are way high,(near the golf course for example) some under, but taken as an average they're only slightly over the state permitted #. he also noted that there were fluxuations yearly, higher in some months, lower in others, so don't know if that correlates with winter rains etc. But the overall level has been pretty much stabilized by the building moritorium. Now, I don't know if building outside the PZ will be adding to that nitrate level, that's another thing that needs to be looked at, I'm sure.

Shark Inlet said...

Oh, I understand how seasonal data can be difficult to deal with ... and because different people start with different assumptions they may reach different conclusions ... I was just wondering how goat is so sure when the experts tend to all be on one side.

Actually I would love to get hold of the data myself so that I could look at the values over time and space...

goat said...

Use the PRA, go look at all the reports Shark, they're available Mon. - Fri.at the CSD office, it's best to make an appointment.