Pages

Wednesday, August 08, 2007

Oh, For God’s Sake, Roger, Sit Down And Shut Up and STOP Monkey Wrenching The Hideous Los Osos Sewer Project!

As if poor Los Osos doesn’t have enough problems, now we’ve got Regional Water Quality Board CEO, Roger Briggs, screwing things up again.

Seems the Coastal Commission permit on the Tri W site was due to lapse. The CSD holds the permit and didn’t want to ask the CC to renew it for a variety of reasons, chief of them being that to ask for a renewal or extension could well trigger an appeal from somebody in the community which would mean the original permit would get a look-see and lord knows what worms would have climbed out (all that “bait and switchy” stuff that NOBODY wants to see crawling around on the floor).

And the County didn’t want to touch that permit extension with a ten foot pole because of all those worms as well, and if the permit were then transferred to the County, the County would likely inherit the hideous mess at Tri-W, created when the three recalled CSD board members started work on that project weeks before the recall election, thereby tearing up that site (all ESHA land with awful mitigation requirements on it), so there it sits, No Man’s Land, as radioactive as if a toxic meteor had hit it, which in some ways is exactly what happened.

So, without bothering to check to see whether or not this permit had any real function, now that the County was in charge of the project, Roger goes all postal and sends a letter to the Board of Supervisors and project head, Paavo Ogren, accusing the County of “delaying” the project – RogerSpeak code words for FINES!FINES!FINES!YOU’RE ALL GONNA DIE IN THE STREETS LIKE DAWGS! and (falsely) claiming that the permit lapse would cause YEARS OF DELAY AND COST MILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE IN THE STREETS LIKE DAWGS!

So the BOS scheduled the matter to be on the agenda where we find out that, No, the lapsed permit won’t really delay things all that long, and No, the lapsed permit won’t cost millions since the huge majority of the work has not only been done but remains valid and can simply be used should Tri-W be the final site selected and No, we’re not all going to die in the streets like dogs.

However, we also learned that letting that permit lapse does have one really crucial benefit: It levels the playing field when considering all the other options. During TAC discussion, the Tri-W site was always given a special pass-through seat at the table, so to speak, because “it has a permit.” Never mind that the permit was obtained under, uh, questionable circumstances (see www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com, Ron Crawford’s posts concerning that permit), never mind that conditions and rules and regulations have changed since that permit was issued so that if that site were picked, another hearing would be necessary and then it’s likely all those worms would spill on the floor anyway and so everything would likely end up at square one, thereby rendering the benefits of a permit moot anyhow.

To anyone without a tin ear, that permit was a liability in getting an accurate TAC report, a clean Process and a fair 218 vote. Paavo further noted that trying to extend or transfer that permit just wasn’t worth it because the value of the permit is in the report, which is still useful, while its liabilities were not worth it. That he would rather get sued for being objective as the county promised they would be when taking over this project, than getting sued for trying to defend a project the county never signed onto in the first place.

In short, here’s what Paavo felt was the wiser course. WALKING THE CLEAN PATH.

Are you listening, Roger? Walking the clean path. That means no more hysteria and false claims. No more uninformed monkey wrenching. No more threats. Get your fingers out of this pie. You’ve done enough damage to this community and this project already. Because here it is in a nutshell, so listen up RWQCB and SWB and BOS and Roger and all the ships at sea:


Los Osos is now like an old, rattling barn filled with half-crazed, sorely used and abused, spooked wild mustangs, hot air blowing out of their nostrils, hooves stamping, bodies jumping and slamming at every twig snap, white eyes rolling, a fearful, spooked, terrified bunch of horses ready to bolt at the least noise, ready to crash through the walls and stomp the place to pieces.

A horse whisperer with a golden ear, would have the horse sense to know that he needed to arrive at that barn with soft words, a gentling touch. He would carefully and visibly and slowly remove all the spooky elements of rattling doors, flashing lights, loud noises, let the mustangs see those things were gone. He would make his calm presence known, clear away scary dark debris, keep the barn clean and clear and quiet and well lit so the horses could clearly see their surroundings and track who was moving where.

That’s what s smart horse whisperer would do.

But guess who we’re stuck with? Right, Roger Briggs who runs into the barn carrying a flaming torch, armloads of tinder-dry hay, tossing cherry bombs everywhere, yelling GEE!HAW!FINES!FINES!FINES!YER ALL GONNA DIE IN THE STREEETS LIKE DAWGS!

And then stands there looking puzzled while the mustangs run amok and tear the barn down and says, “Whaaattt? Whadda I do?”

So, Regional Board members, you want a successful 218 election? You want a successful wastewater project, completed as fast as possible? Then here’s what you need to do: Either put a cork in Roger, or get him on another slow boat to China, Pllluuueeeeeze.

If you don’t, the biggest Monkey Wrencher-Project Killer in this whole process will be your own boy.

Mercifully, the BoS saw through this incompetent, appallingly ill considered ploy and voted 5-0 to follow staff’s advice and let the CC permit die a timely and merciful death.

Even Supervisor Gibson, who attempted a last minute “compromise” fishing expedition letter to try to see if the CC would, on its own accord, sorta just somehow delay the permits expiration, heh-heh, let the status quo stand, let sleeping dogs lie, thereby maybe make the Tri-W supporters happy while making the non-Tri-W supporters not too unhappy, decided to withdraw the letter. He explained that it was clear from comments from his fellow BoS members that the letter wasn’t helpful, was clouding the issue, not clarifying it, and was a mistake. That withdrawal was a move that also indicated that, unlike Roger, Supervisor Gibson doesn’t have a tin ear and was actually paying attention to the feed back loops.

And finally, the Board unanimously voted to confirm the newest TAC addition, Dr. David Dubbink. He has my thanks and my deepest sympathy.

131 comments:

Steve said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Steve said...

Its too bad the permit didnt get to go before the Coastal Commission again... maybe this time they would have seen reason and dispensed of the Tri-W site forever.

Think about it... if during the renewal process, the CCC decides to reject the permit renewal. That sole action would have thrown a monkey wrench in the whole TAC process. All of the Tri-W stuff would have been useless.

Instead, now the TAC can assume that the CCC may be willing to reissue that permit at a later time (a poor assumption if you ask me) and continue to waste our valuable time beating that dead horse.

But I guess MY "poor assumption" is that the CCC would have seen reason this time around.

So as much as I would have like to see the CCC deal with this issue now, and finally dispense of it... I guess letting the permit expire was the second best choice.

TCG said...

I watched a TIVO recording (fast forwarded some) of the Board of Supervisors meeting last night after I went to the 218 Q and A session at the golf course. I was impressed with how the County project manager handled both sessions.

I have as much or more confidence in the County's people assigned to the project, and the process itself, as I would with any other future process to get this handled.

I think it is now or never, and the never will be bad.

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

Your 2nd paragraph doesn't make sense.

In particular, Steve Monowitz was quoted in the local paper as saying that the LOCSD could extend the permit for free with no hassle. (Hmmm... how well does that match what Ron's been telling us?) If that is the case, your statement that the LOCSD didn't want to open the bait-n-switchy stuff makes little sense. I would think that Julie and Lisa and the rest would want CCLO to appeal the original CDP.

Ron's told us for over a year now that all that needs to happen to permanently kill TriW is to allow the CCC one more look at the issue one more time. I would think that Julie would want to give CCLO another opportunity to stick a knife in the back of TriW.

So, it would appear that someone here is confused because if what Ron says is right, Julie is overlooking the best possible way of killing the project she wants to kill.

As Monowitz said, the refusal to extend the CDP (by both the LOCSD for no obvious reason at all other than they are afraidd that the County will choose TriW and the LOCSD board majority wants to make TriW as unattractive as possible) will, if the County chooses TriW, cause the project to be extended by at least a few months. There is a real cost associated with even a small amount of delay. A three month delay on a $150M project means an extra $4M (or an extra $800 per household which, at SRF loan rates is about $4.25 per month).

Now, I don't think that the non-extension of the CDP is a mistake. There will be a benefit to the County if they choose a site other than TriW ... the County will not be liable for destruction of ESHA by the LOCSD. Furthermore, if the County does choose TriW, there will be fewer arguments that the deck was stacked to begin with. (I know that there are some conspiracy theorists who will see the deck as having been stacked no matter what happens, but the general public will see this as the County attempting to be fair to all possible sites.)


Also, Ann, you keep referring people to Ron's blog as evidence that the TriW permit was obtained under questionable circumstances. The unfortunate thing here is that if it is true, Ron could easily get a quote from Steve Monowitz indicating that. The fact that he hasn't yet done this (in over a year since he's told us Steve is "pissed") makes me wonder whether Ron's claim ... all that bait-n-switchy stuff ... has any merit at all.


I think that to understand Briggs here you've got to understand that his job is to oppose any delay in water quality. If the County choice to let the CDP expire will possibly cause delay, he should oppose that action. You say that he's jumping on the scale. What do you call the LOCSD board members all adding their two cents? Isn't that just the same thing?

Did he actually say "fines" or "CDOs" or something like that? Did he actually say that the County action (or inaction, as it were) would will have a direct impact on the likelihood of fines ... or are you just suggesting that because you want to accuse Roger of being unfair.


There is often an interesting dance that takes place when the staff of various agencies work together. They each have their own charges by their own bosses and they have to play their roles in the dance.

Ron said...

Kumbaya, my Lord, Kumba... oh, I'm sorry. For some reason, that song's been stuck in my head since yesterday afternoon.

What a beat down that was. I almost wanted to drive the hour to town just to throw in the towel for Tri-W. It was out cold, on the mat, and everyone just kept pounding away at it. It got ugly.

ONE Tri-W supporter, out of about 50 speakers? Are freaking kidding me? What happened to the "strongly held community value?"

And I loved how that one supporter, Joyce Albright, said, "There are still a lot of people in the community that like the Tri-W project."

Really? Then where are they? Where was Nash-Karner? Where was Hensley? Where was LeGros? Where were all of those folks that used to show up in those silly "Save the Dream" t-shirts at the pre-recall CSD meetings? What happened to all of those people?

The other team didn't even bother to show up.

Heck, even Jon Arcunni, didn't even go against staff's recommendation, he just wanted Gibson's ill-conceived letter sent.

Also, why-oh-why can't the Trib get anything right? That's embarrassing, too. For example, from today's story:

Sona Patel writes:

"But Supervisor Bruce Gibson -- whose district includes Los Osos -- voted not to send it (the letter)... "

That's wrong. He didn't vote on the letter at all. He ended up calling it a "mistake," ate a gigantic pile of crow, and then just pulled it from consideration.

Ann wrote:

"... decided to withdraw the letter.

That's right. Ann got it right, the Trib got it wrong. Plus, Ann scoops the Trib left and right. She has almost zero resources, they have a newsroom full of resources, and Ann blows them away.... embarrassing for them.

Sona writes:

"Tri-W was criticized because bids for constructing a plant there came in much higher than expected, and because it's near the library, churches, homes, community center and the town's only park."

Near the town's only park? Hey, Sona, I've got some news for ya, Tri-W was criticized because it INCLUDED a park -- a multi-million dollar park -- a multi-million dollar park that was dictating the location, and your rag of a newspaper has YET to acknowledge it ever existed, not even in those three editorials that your "newspaper" wrote -- including one on recall election day -- supporting the park-project-with-a-sewer-plant-in-it, and still, not even in today's article, are you clear on that.

It's almost like the Trib's staff has never even looked at the Tri-W CDP to see Special Condition of Approval #17... EVER! That's very embarrassing for them. Terrible journalism. Just awful. I can't overemphasize how bad their journalism is. It's horrible. Terrible. Awful.

Sona:

"The site's supporters argued its central location would require fewer pipes and pumps to collect sewage."

Yea, maybe, but that central location, Sona, according to State officials, added $20 million to the project, while a pipe taking everything out of town adds about $2 million. That's all documented, S. I wish you would look some of that stuff up before you write things like that.

Immediately after the Supes ruling yesterday, I sent Steve Monowitz this e-mail:

Hello Steve,

Considering this:

"CZLUO Section 23.08.288d allows public facilities within ESHA only where there is no other feasible location."

And considering that the SLO County TAC has identified other feasible locations to the Tri-W site for the treatment facility, and considering the fact that the Tri-W permit will expire on August 11, 2007...

Is it illegal to build a sewer plant at the Tri-W site?

Thanks,
Ron

No reply, yet.

There's no doubt about it... the Tri-W project needs to go the way of the Andre1 property, when that potential site was ruled out by the TAC because of PG&E easements, Tri-W needs to immediately be ruled out because of CZLUO Section 23.08.288d.

There's no difference between the two. It's not going to work, just like Andre1, so why study it? Because of CEQA requirements? CEQA is WHY it's not going to work.

Anon wrote:

"Steve Monowitz was quoted in the local paper as saying that the LOCSD could extend the permit for free with no hassle. (Hmmm... how well does that match what Ron's been telling us?)"

Hmmm... I never wrote a word on the cost of extending the permit, and then I scrolled through the rest of your post.

Kumbaya my Lord, Kumbaya....

Area51 said...

According to SewerWatch dated Friday, June 9, 2006:

"SewerWatch has struck a deal with the staff of the California Coastal Commission.

It goes like this: I have agreed to shelve my request that the Tri-W development permit be revoked now -- as in today -- and pursue it only if there is "an official determination by the CSD or a future successor to build the treatment plant at Tri-W," and, in return, Steve Monowitz, a senior staff member with the Commission, told me that if the Tri-W project does come back, I will be granted a hearing on my revocation request.

"You deserve a hearing," Monowitz told me in a recent phone interview. "It looks like there may, indeed, have been some misrepresentation.""

It seems there might be a very real chance we'll finally get to see the fruits of the Monowitz/Crawford friendship. Should be fun.

And Santa Margerita Ron, the true litmus test will lie in the results of the 218 by homeowners ONLY (the ones paying hence the only ones that count in my opinion), not by how many mts/no sewer folks show up at a BOS meeting. Should the vote pass, I expect you will give props accordingly.

Richard LeGros said...

Hi Ann,

From your past blogs, I can safely say that you avocate clean and transparent process. Regarding the matter of the Tri-W permit status, I have a few questions for you (or whoever else wishes to answer these questions).

AS:

1. The Tri-W permit represents a $24,000,000 investment by the property owners of Los Osos.

2. The LOCSD board is required by law to make all policy decisions in public after input from the pubic, LOCSD staff and consultants

3. That at the BOS meeting yesterday (Aug 7), four of the LOCSD baord members cleatly displayed that the LOCSD board majority has decided that their policy is not to request an extension of the Tri-W permit.

THEN it raises the following questions:

QUESTION A:
Should the LOCSD staff and board have adgenized for public debate
the status of the Tri-W permit before setting policy on this issue?

QUESTION B:
Should the LOCSD board (prior to setting policy on the permit's status) have received analysis from LOCSD staff, consultants and other governmental agencies as to the consequences to the district and property owners of a potential LOCSD policy decision on the topic of the status of the Tri-W permits?

QUESTION C:
When and where did the LOCSD board majority decide LOCSD policy was to not request the Tri-W extension?

Regards, Richard LeGros

Ron said...

Area 51 wrote:

"According to SewerWatch dated Friday, June 9, 2006:"

Thanks for digging that up... here's the link.

Excellent stuff.

"It seems there might be a very real chance we'll finally get to see the fruits of the Monowitz/Crawford friendship. Should be fun."

Tell me about it. Should be a LOT of fun!

You know, a couple years back, he called me out of the blue one day just to tell me how much he appreciated my reporting. That was a great phone call.

"Should the vote pass, I expect you will give props accordingly."

After yesterday, I'll give props right now -- I think County staff is doing a hell of a job.

A great moment from yesterday? When Paavo said to the people that were surprised with their recommendation, "You haven't been listening. This should come as no surprise."

Perfectly put.

All those people backed the wrong horse for so long, and fought so hard, that they are all HEAVILY conflicted these days, and are experiencing a classic case of cognitive dissonance. They all drank Nash-Karner's "behavior based" Kool-Aid for the past eight years, and now are totally confused as to the realities of the situation. Naturally.

Richard:

"1. The Tri-W permit represents a $24,000,000 investment by the property owners of Los Osos."

Nice try. Investment? Not so much... The Tri-W permit represents a $24,000,000 "bait and switchy" effort just to cover up the massive mistake of forming the LOCSD in the first place.

"QUESTION A:
Should the LOCSD staff and board have adgenized for public debate the status of the Tri-W permit before setting policy on this issue?"


ANSWER A:
Rich, we saw that debate yesterday. It was 50 - 1. By the way, where were you? It could have been 50 - 2.

4crapkiller said...

Ron says:

"There's no doubt about it... the Tri-W project needs to go the way of the Andre1 property, when that potential site was ruled out by the TAC because of PG&E easements, Tri-W needs to immediately be ruled out because of CZLUO Section 23.08.288d."

If what you say is true, then why confuse the situation by leaving TRI-W on the table? I agree. I await legal response from the CC Steve Monowitz. I doubt you will get a reply. If he agrees with you he will make the commission look like a bunch of idiots for permitting the site.

We surely were confused during the recall when the Andre1 site was touted as the "Move the Sewer" site with the Nelson Environmental system on it by the recall advocates. The recall was based on lies and misinformation. The "Move the sewer" advocates were proposing a site that could not be used because of easements. The Nelson environmental system had no documentation of NITRATE removal. These easements were public knowledge, presented at LOCSD meeting on numerous occasions, and yet the "pie in the sky" persisted for political power.

Where were you and ANN on this? Where was the whoaaa, the site cannot be used! Why was Ripley even considering the site? Stinks of fraud! "Omission of mention of the easements for convenience".

Gibson produced a brilliant solution to the permit question. It came to basically send the permit up and let the CC decide. But by suggesting the compromise and then withdrawing his letter, and calling it a mistake, he pissed everyone off. He showed weakness of leadership and surely has fired up the RECALL EFFORT. This will intensify when his view shed ordinance comes up again.

There is a great big plastic septic tank of modern design here on a trailer in Los Osos that everyone will see. Already it is being called "The Gibson Waffle Hut".

Richard LeGros said...

Ron,

You are avoiding answering the question.

To date, the LOCSD has not agendized the issue regarding the fate of the CDP of Tri-W.

What you refer to is the debate that took place on a County- agendized item. At that meeting, the LOCSD board majoity expressed clearly that they agree on a given policy. That policy was adopted in private. There are serious questions about the liabilities that this policy will have on the fate of the LOCSD. The consequences need to be discussed.

In closing, ALL my questions posed to Ann (and whoever else who wants to answer) remain unanswered.

Regards, Richard LeGros

Sewertoons said...

Ron brings up his "strongly held community value" rant again (snore) but, hey - that's right, we HATE parks around here - don't want no stinkin' park in Los Osos and certainly not some stinky, mosquito-infested, "polishing pond" outta town! And on the subject of parks - which MIGHT have ponds - are you going to assess yourself to pay to get backward SLO County up to speed on eradicating mosquitos that have the potential to carry West Nile Virus - or just invest in a lot of DEET?

On another topic, months ago I was at the CSD meeting where I saw Chuck C. state in a very gloomy frame of mind that ironically the CSD would have to re-up the permits for Tri-W. I'm not even sure if this was on camera, as he was answering someone in the audience as he was walking by the video equipment near the dias and door. Now how it went from that ONE PUBLIC MENTION, to what occurred yesterday at the BOS, I'll never know, because I watch or attend ALL of the CSD meetings - from start to finish - and nothing was ever mentioned again, let alone discussed by the Board.

As to the Tri-W supporters not showing up at the BOS yesterday? "ONE Tri-W supporter, out of about 50 speakers?" NEWS FLASH - they are sick of the fight, Ron. That's all. They are grown up enough to say, "Let's get a sewer in this town, even if it isn't the one we want." Unlike the other side which will only stop shrieking and writhing about if it is THEIR PREFERRED design (because they KNOW they are RIGHT). Fixing the problem of pollution is only secondary in their minds. That is why they must appear over and over attempting to squash TriW. Shows you how afraid they are. I think many will be surprised when Tri-W will be shown BY THE NUMBERS, that it really is the cheapest way to go.

And as for step/steg? My deepest thanks to Mr. Bearden for showing us what the new tanks will look like. Do I want to rip out my carefully tended trees and plants to bury a mini-van with two giant manhole covers in my front yard? Absolutely not. If it is chosen by the community, will I accept the decision? Absolutely I will. And I am also aware that it will be my responsibility to to buy new plants and fix my yard back up and try to figure out a way to disguise the manhole covers. Wonder how many thousands that will cost? Is ripping out a native oak tree legal?

Steve said...

Richard, I will answer your question...

The CSD agendizes ACTION items... thnigs that they need to take action on.

You are asking that they agendize NOT taking any action on something... huh??

You are assuming the LOCSD board "decided" without a meeting or public input NOT to take action on renewing the permit. That isnt necessarily the case.

If any one of the board members wanted to TAKE ACTION on the permit, they could request a special meeting or an added agenda item to the next regular meeting and it could be discussed. As long as Stan isnt writing the agenda, there's a pretty good chance the item would be added.

If noone wants to duscuss it, and therefore take NO ACTION, then that's it. The permit expires.

Your post makes it sound like there is some impropriety here... some allegation that is unfounded.

And the fact that it is coming from you is laughable... Richard LeGros criticizing someone for their inaction.... hahaha!!!

Bag of gas.

4crapkiller said...

Steve,

It would seem to ME that not to agenda this important question to the community is an error of omission. Since the question was important to a good percentage (49.2%) of the last vote of the community they should have performed "due diligence". This could be considered a violation of their oath of office. One more piece of evidence of "bad faith".
The could have put it on the agenda, gone with the nut cases, and voted to let it expire.

Of course we will see.

Sewertoons said...

Thank you 4crapkiller; wise words as always! I am in that 49.2% that keeps getting ignored.

Shark Inlet said...

Richard,

I think that you of all people should know how the LOCSD was able take that (non)action without agendizing the issue. To send a letter to the CCC asking for an extension would have required the board to direct staff to do so. Not sending such a letter would require ... um ... nothing.

They simply didn't put it on the agenda ... the question is this ... who gets to determine what is on the agenda? The ability to determine what gets on the agenda and what doesn't is pretty important and I am wondering who on the LOCSD board makes that determination. I want to know whether it was just Chuck alone or whether the board, as a whole makes such decisions in closed session.

Who kept us from making public comment on the topic? Steve, perhaps you know.

I'll agree with Crap on this one ... to make a decision by not agendizing a possible action item where community input could possibly sway the decision is clearly out of line. Legal perhaps, but certainly not ethical by any standards.


I also await with great interest, the response of Steve Monowitz to Ron's question. It is unfortunate that Ron didn't write the question in a way that the answer would necessarily give us unbiased information, but the answer would be interesting, nonetheless. I wonder, however, how the current TriW site could be considered ESHA at all.

Mike Green said...

Sharkey bubbled:
I'll agree with Crap on this one ... to make a decision by not agendizing a possible action item where community input could possibly sway the decision is clearly out of line. Legal perhaps, but certainly not ethical by any standards."

OK I'll bite, what on Gods Green Earth could have possibly convinced you that the LOCSD would reverse a negative TriW decision? (or Non decision in this case)

Let's speculate, the item is agendized and an unruly mob of TriW supporters with tar buckets and feathers show up for the meeting?

The argument is so weak that I think you would have a better time arguing for a flat earth, I mean, come on, get real.

And here is another thing, do you really think the SLOBOS puts that much weight with the LOCSD? I don't I'll bet one word from Waddel outweighs all the CSD combined and Al Barrow too.

Don't ever expect the SLOBOS to make decisions that are contrary to the good of their constituents.

Remember Gibson represents a lot more than just Los Osos and he is only 1/5 the board.

Shark Inlet said...

Mike (Green),

Oh, I am under no illusion that the majority on the CSD board today would do the right thing and "let the people decide." (Sort of ironic, isn't it ... that a few years ago they said the the board shouldn't make decisions without listening to the people first but they seem to have done exactly that again just recently.)

Presumably if the item was agendized, the LOCSD board would have voted 1-4 to request the permit be extended (presumably Joe would vote "yes" because it would possibly save the homeowners as much as $800 each and the others would vote "no" because they would rather avoid TriW even if we end up paying more).

On the matter of whether the SLO BOS values what the LOCSD thinks ... it doesn't matter. The LOCSD has a CDP with the CCC and the LOCSD could have extended that CDP without any cost to any of us and doing so could possibly have saved me and you each $800. However, they don't care about you and me, they only seem to care about stopping TriW "no matter how much it costs."

Mike Green said...

Sharkeroo,
Well DUH! Jeeze this isn't even an interesting thread. The LOCSD makes a fiscally unsound decision! Next thing you know you'll be telling us sharks live in the ocean so be careful swimming.

Look, there is no way to prevent the LOCSD from being who they are.
The best thing is to minimize the influence of that board by supporting the county and ignoring as much as possible the LOCSD.

Mike Green said...

I have to admit I did enjoy the PZLDF meeting last night, I had to bug out early, but Pavo and Rob were on top of their game! KUDOS to them.

I was also gratified to learn that my wine bar sailed under the radar and my assessment "vote" will come in at about 26K

I was expecting to hear worse.

Mike said...

By the County taking the action of not pursueing an extention of the permit from the CCC regarding the Tri-W site, doesn't that mean that the LOCSD has NO responsibility for ANY Sewer Project???

So, does that mean the LOCSD will get back to their responsibility of resolving the Bankruptcy issue??? There should be no further lengthy public comments regarding the sewer or the 218 vote. If they choose to continue, they would be considered a political action committee (PAC) and be in violation of their oaths of office to promote the services for which they were elected to oversee, now only Fire, Water Supply and Solid Waste.

Let's see how long they keep the doors open before proving the TaxPayers Watch correct in that thye should have been dissolved.

Mike Green said...

mike,
A while back Jon Arcuni and I were at a CSD meeting with Sam Blakesley
We asked him if it was in the power of the CSD board to dissolve the CSD, the answer is no.
The LOCSDBOD does not have the ability to "close the doors"
That power is only with LAFCO (not a chance in hell)
Or the electorate (slightly better chance but not realistic).
If you want a board better suited to your desires (not an unreasonable thing at all), you are going to have to wait until the next election.

Conspiracy Boy said...

Mike Green:

You say, "I was also gratified to learn that my wine bar sailed under the radar and my assessment "vote" will come in at about 26K..."

Does that include the monthly or bi-monthly fees and charges?

One CSD director said that the county was low-balling the assessment number and would up the fees & charges a lot. And, does that include the lateral/hook-up? I don't think so. How much is that?

The assessment won't be monthly. Right? Only if you pay taxes with your mortgage...so, we'll have a big lump sum of money (added to regular property taxes) to come up with all at once. So, we'll have monthly fees & charges that don't even require a 218 -- right?? There will be absolutely no "caps" on these fees and charges.

Who benefits? The county does, when people are forced out of their homes that are already paid off -- they'll lose thousands and thousands of dollars from what they should have gotten. The county gets rid of all that Prop 13 stuff. And the developers win too. Are you in construction Mike?

All these seniors are outta here, and it's wrong, no matter how you choose to look at it.

Mike said...

You believe anything the CSD 4 say?

Conspiracy Boy said...

Mike:

Can YOU answer any of my questions?

BTW, I do believe the one CSD director who said that. That one has the insider scoop on just about everything, and has shown that over and over.

Besides, I don't believe there has to be any 218 vote for the fees and charges, so all the cost over-runs can be added there and will be!

Mike said...

You worry too much over things that are now too far out of any of us property owners control. The CSD and Ms.McPherson have run a terrorist campaign of delay, delay, delay to accomplish their goal of driving all costs beyond reason. We may all lose our homes thanks to the tactics of Schicker, Tacker, and their boyz, but I can't blame the RWQCB for doing what they are paid by us to do! All I can hope for is that the County will put aside all the obstructionist lobbying and proceed to build this sewer and I hope to God that the County can wrangle a much larger series of grants to assist us with what will be an outrageous cost! There are some LOCSD BOD's I'd like to see held accountable in a court of law and I do mean the Lisa Schicker Board!!

Mike Green said...

CB I'll try to convey what I heard at the meeting, I didn't take notes, so if I make a mistake, hopefully someone will correct.
The assessment of about 26K represents the approximate middle estimate for all systems studied by the TAC in the fine screening report, with the amount being on the low end of gravity and the high end of STEP.
The assessment of 26k (single family resident on septic) is for voting purposes but can reflect a reasonable real world cost estimate for the system up to the property line, past that it all depends on your situation and of course the final system chosen.
If the 218 passes you will have several options for paying the assessment, yes, monthly payment were mentioned as an option.
Is the assessment capped? yes
Can the final assessment be Less? you bet! If the final real bids come in under the assessed amount the assessment will be less, if the bids are over, OTHER funding mechanism would have to fill in the gap.
Perhaps that is one of your concerns, I don't blame you it's mine too.
You may be glad to know that Orenco is very much alive in this process (according to Pavo)
If they truly can get it done cheaper with contracts and the costs are somewhere about where you claim the assessment will be much smaller.Hooray!

As far as who benefits in the end, That question has been rendered moot by the Water Board.
The horrible treatment of the doomed 45 was a classroom for them, remember, this kind of thing has never happened before. They used those folks to find out what they could do, next time around there won't be any excellent Sullivan Briefs or Writs.
Their ducks will be all in a row, I don't want to be a duck.
That could be a benefit .

Conspiracy Boy said...

Mike Green:


Thanks for the info.

I'm concerned with the fees & charges though. I know that assessment is capped.

The fees and charges are the O & M costs, and I fear that the project going over budget will be where they can add whatever amount of money that they want -- since there is no 218 required for fees & charges -- any thoughts on that aspect of the project?

Mike Green said...

O&M is driven by the design chosen, I would hope that the winner of the survey after the 218 (if it passes) would be the one with the most attractive O&M estimate.

Over-budget, Where the gap between the assessment and the real-world bids needs OTHER funding.
Man, thats a tough one, and I'm not qualified to make predictions, but I will tell you at the meeting that was discussed. Pavo said that the hardest part of his job was to prevent that, and looked to the Nacimiento Water project as one where the county's
methods of aggressive courting of private industry competition has payed off in spades (under budget)
The county does have the proven ability to do this, to me that is encouraging.
I guess its a trust thing, kind of like cargo cult.

Mike Green said...

Oh, and CB, No I'm not in construction, I'm a car mechanic.

Sewertoons said...

mike green said:

"If you want a board better suited to your desires (not an unreasonable thing at all), you are going to have to wait until the next election."

Well, let's hope that there is one. Joe was going "hint, hint, hint" to the rest of the board concerning investigating the missing bond payment money and its relationship to the bankruptcy without saying what that actually meant, (thoeretically the rest of the board had paid enough attention to get what he was saying)but this didn't sound like a positive omen to me. Then the rest of the board said, yeah, yeah, it's important (yawn) we'll get to that later.

We haven't heard squat on things bankruptcy. If the judge doesn't allow the bankruptcy, but declares insolvency, then what? Does a Santa Barbara federal judge care what SLO County LAFCo wants?

Mike Green said...

Toons, do you know what would happen if insolvency occurs?
Would the county or LAFCO be forced to dissolve the CSD or would the County be forced to preserve the CSD and replace the board?
I am ignorant.

Churadogs said...

Someone calling himself Richard LeGros sez;"3. That at the BOS meeting yesterday (Aug 7), four of the LOCSD baord members cleatly displayed that the LOCSD board majority has decided that their policy is not to request an extension of the Tri-W permit."

and then later asks:"At that meeting, the LOCSD board majoity expressed clearly that they agree on a given policy. That policy was adopted in private."

Did the four Directors at the BOS meeting state that they were speaking for the Board or that their statements refleced a Board POLICY, or that the Board had voted and decided on a policy? As the person calling himself Richard LeGros should know, until something is agendized and actually VOTED ON, it ain't "policy." It doesn't matter whether all five members stand up and state the same opinion, it remains individual opinions, not a board policy, unless and until it's voted on.

It's my understaniding, that unless and until the board as a whole actually votes on something, then it's not policy, all you have are individual opinions and opinons are worth what you pay for them . . . nothing, they have no legal standing.

AKA LeGros also sez:"THEN it raises the following questions:

QUESTION A:
Should the LOCSD staff and board have adgenized for public debate
the status of the Tri-W permit before setting policy on this issue?"

If memory serves, the President of the board sets the agenda as he/she pleases and/or as however the board members have decided it shall be set, i.e. at least three members must ask for a particular item? or two? or however. I have to presume that apparently not enough board members wanted this item on the agenda, so the President didn't put it on. (After all, the CSD, as we are constantly reminded, does not have any say in the wastewater project any more, so what difference would it be whether they renewed a permit or not, the COUNTY would have ultimate say in it all anyway?) When somebody known as Richard Le Gros was on the Board, I presume his board had similar rules concerning setting the agenda. I remember Lisa and Julie repeatedly asking for items to be agendized week after week and nothing ever showed up, so I presume the President either didn't want them on the agenda or the majority of the board members didn't want to put those items on the agenda, or some such. I would suggest the person calling himself Richard LeGros come to the next CSD meeting and ASK how or if the CSD has changed their agenda-setting policy. That might give you the answer.

Crap sez:"Where were you and ANN on this? Where was the whoaaa, the site cannot be used! Why was Ripley even considering the site? Stinks of fraud! "Omission of mention of the easements for convenience"."

Actually the lack of due dilligence came with only looking at Andre 1 & 2, by the recalled CSD, then saying, Oh, out of town won't work, would be waaaaayyyy more expensive, THERE IS NO OTHER OPTION BUT TRI W, when Ripley later came in and clearly identified a whole lot of sites, including more than 2 that WOULD WORK quite well, thank you (neither of them Andre 1 or 2)AND proposed a system that was slightly cheaper than Tri W, NOT waaaaayyyy more expensive, and their plan was vetted by Dr. T's peer group evaluation as feasible, & etc.and so far the TAC has not eliminated any of the "alternatives," thereby giving lie to the statement that Tri W is the ONLY solution available & etc. So, if you're concerned with fraud and lack of due dilligence and lies, I suggest you're barking up the wrong CSD.

Inlet sez:"They simply didn't put it on the agenda ... the question is this ... who gets to determine what is on the agenda? The ability to determine what gets on the agenda and what doesn't is pretty important and I am wondering who on the LOCSD board makes that determination. I want to know whether it was just Chuck alone or whether the board, as a whole makes such decisions in closed session."

My advice for you is the same for the person calling himself Richard Le Gros: Please go to a CSD meeting and ASK what the board poicy is regarding getting agenda items on the agenda. Very simple. You might want to also ask, has the policy changed or does it differ from the previous CSD's agenda setting policy, or is it still the same? & etc. Very simple questions asked at the right forum and you'd get the answer straight from the horses mouth. You could also stop by the officec and ask to see a copy of the policy regarding the setting of agenda items. It'd be there in black and white.

conspiracy Boy sez:"So, we'll have monthly fees & charges that don't even require a 218 -- right?? There will be absolutely no "caps" on these fees and charges."

While everyone's running around screaming about "no caps on the fees," please remember, Tri-W was ALL FEES. The only fixed "assessment" vote was that small amount for design and land purchase. There was no 218 on the TriW final cost. The SRF Loan was unsecured and would be paid back via fees which had no cap,and, of course, there was no caps on the yearly OM&R on Tri W. The $205 "guesimate" on Tri-W was the starting line, not the end point. So, while everyone's screaming about the county's NO CAPS, ADDED FEES & etc, please keep that in mind.

It's also not known at this point whether there will be a budgeted amount for installing STEP tenks, & etc, and a resporation budget. Also keep in mind, that the cost of hooking up your laterals for Tri W came out of your pocket and so far as I know, the cost of laterals if gravity is picked, will also come out of your pocket (and if you have to tear up your yard or driveway to do it, that'll be your cost as well) So I would suggest everyone take a deep breath at this point before screaming about GAWD MAH PETUNIAS WILL HAFTA BE TORN UP GAAAAHHH WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!

Thanks to Mike Green. I had a prior committment and couldn't make the 218 PZLDF meeting. Thanks for your notes. $26,000 as a middle guestimate (on a 20 year loan?) with all systems still on the table and, as Paavo has said in the past, plans for a Battle Of The Sewer Companies for low bids planned, hmmmmm. Interesting. Couple of points come to mind: Property values on "sewered" properties are always higher than properties on septic tanks. This community has no water, so the chance of growing very much is pretty slim at this point. No growth means whatever property that's here increases in value as well. Los Osos is pretty heavily "green-belted" and/or State Parked, which also reduces develpment. So, before everyone has a cow about dying in the streets like dogs, they need to think about property valuation long term. Hopefully, there will be some workshops,maybe, on reverse mortgages or other possible financial options. There's still lots to be looked at.
so I hope everyone can take a deep breath. It's bad enough we have Roger Briggs tossing firebombs, don't need any more monkeywrenchers. This town's spooked enough.

Mike Green said...

Pavo mentioned that they were pursuing a 30 year loan. (SRF?)

Richard LeGros said...

To the person calling herself Ann,

The LOCSD has received a letter from the CC staff asking the LOCSD to advise them regarding the district's intent on ending or extending the Tri-W permit. The CC letter requires an ACTION by the LOCSD board; and this ACTION constitues what BOARD POLICY is regarding the permits.

All policy must be decided by the LOCSD board in an agendized meeting; open for comments from the public, staff and consultants.
This has not occured.

Regardless if one supports or opposes Tri-W, there must be a public discussion of the consequesnces to the LOCSD and the districts property owners if the permit is terminated. What if those consequences harms the community? The LOCSD board needs to anlysis data of the consequences of terminating the project prior to setting policy. Because the board has not done so opens them up to peronal liability.

Regards, Richard LeGros

Mike Green said...

Richard, seems like that scenario would make you happy, here is another avenue to punish the recall board.
As far as having a "discussion"
I am assuming you are kidding, right?
What could you possibly say to the CSD board that would cause them to do anything to support TriW OR make sound financial decisions?
So, you may have a very very insignificant point.
The Board that matters has made their decision,
You did register your objection.
That is that.

Conspiracy Boy said...

Ann:

I don't understand your logic.

The Tri-W didn't have a secured loan. There was no 218 vote. The bankruptcy judge stated that it was an unsecured loan too. She'd know. In other words, to the state water board -- deal with it.

The recalled CSD couldn't have pulled it all off (Tri-W) without that vote. So, you can't compare that project's fees & charges to this current project's fees & charges.

Bottom line is that there is no cap on anything if this 218 is approved.

This 218 will only give the "green light" to the county to lay any kind of future charges on us, whether it's construction delays or digs or whatever. The county isn't liable, only the PZ owners are. That's not a good thing. Who's protecting us? Not them, they've covered their ass.

If you trust the county, I guess that's one thing, I can't help it if you aren't thinking.

The county allowed some developers build 1/4 of the homes in the PZ (creating density) without paying a dime towards a sewer. We have no roads, we have nothing, yet the county is paid more property taxe monies from Los Osos than Cambria, Morro Bay, Grover Beach, Nipomo, Cayucos, Templeton, and Oceano...WHAT THE HELL IS THE COUNTY DOING WITH OUR MONEY?

Just imagine if the county would have put money in the bank for a sewer all these years (like they should have) -- that would have helped. It's more than bad faith Ann.

Everything was all a set-up to get the county off the (sewer) hook and they found a way to get the PZ to pay for all the county's mis-deeds.
Thanks to Pandora...

You trust the county? Haven't you read all the material on how and why the CSD was formed especially regarding the sewer? My God Ann. You should.

Besides that, counties build big sewers. They have stated just six months ago that they absolutely wouldn't look at decentralized. Now all the sudden they will consider Pio's gravity to feed a regional plant?

Why won't the county do the most cost effective project? How about a septic survey and cluster ONLY the areas that need to be sewered?

It NEVER HAD TO BE A BIG CENTRALIZED PLANT. Or are we building one just for Gail McPhearson to run?

Mike Green said...

CB: Put forth:
"Why won't the county do the most cost effective project? How about a septic survey and cluster ONLY the areas that need to be sewered?"
OOOH! That sounds like a real peachy idea!
Its FASTER BETTER CHEAPER!!!! and we can put the ponds on the TriW property!!

HA HA HA HA HA Good one!

The PZ has been litigated to death.

Richard LeGros said...

Hi Mike,

Oh, I have no illusions that public comment would matter one whit to this board. They have already made the decision.

The point I am trying to make that their decision is not based upon one bit of analysis as the consequences of terminating the permit. Honestly, how an a rational decision be made without data.

If the property owners are harmed by the board's decision on the permits, then they have exposed themselves (the board) to personal liabilities.

So, I will ask again....any thoughts as to the consequences on terminating the permit? I'll start:

1. Without a valid permit, their is not an official project. Without a project (as defined by a FEIR), the inclusion of the LOCSD or County for $34M in the WRDA must be withdrawn by Ms. Capps.
No Project - no money.

2. Without a valid permit, the CSD has thrown out $17M of a $24M dollar asset. This act will have ramifications with the US Bankrupty Court and the district's bankruptcy plan (if there ever is one).

3. Without a permitted project, the LOCSD is now entirely out of the Sewer business. After Saturday, the LOCSD will not have any valid reason to pursue WW issues.

4. Without a permitted project, the claims by property owners who prepaid their bond assessments, and who have filed in small claims court that the CSD repay the money they lent to the CSD, will now have to be heard (prior small claims court decisions stated that the claims were "premature" because the status of the Tri-W project was in limbo). Now that the project is dead, the claims have ripened. Time will tell what the dollar cost will be to the district once these claims are heard in court.

......anyone have any other thoughts?

Regards, Richard LeGros

Mike Green said...

Richard,

#1 I will await a verification of your concern by Capps,
TriW is still on the table and I think Capps and the county can work this issue out

#2 Nothing has been "thrown away" Talk to Waddel and Monowitz Re-permitting can be done in a few months if needed

#3 GOOD

#4.Those folks should get their money back if possible. But the TriW project is STILL in Limbo, Ask Pavo.

4crapkiller said...

To Richard:

I do not know when the LOCSD Board received the CC letter. If they have been sitting on it for a few months and doing nothing, it is total negligence.

Personal liability? I don't think they care at this point. They are looking at bankruptcy. They are down to one car @ $2500 and house assets of $78,000 with loss of their pension funds and all other assets. In addition their wages may be subject to garnishment. Bankruptcy is not easy these days. When the figures of damages to the property owners come out, they will be sued by many, perhaps a class action case.

At this point there are no final figures and the case is not ripe.

However, it is ripening fast. So far I have not seen, nor heard of any plan submitted to the court or creditors. And this plan must be accepted by the creditors for the bankruptcy to be accepted.

As it stands now, the LOCSD is actually insolvent. If temporary bankruptcy protection is removed, and the request denied, the creditors will hammer the LOCSD in court with their previously filed cases.

Where the LOCSD will get the money to fight these cases is unknown.

Perhaps they will have to raise water and garbage franchise fees to a total of $300 a month.

This is a very bad situation.

While the county denied the recall to avoid liability for LOCSD debts, they have not avoided liability for the decision of LAFCO. But who will hold them accountable?

I will vote for the 218 assessment, but I fear that the county may tie itself up so tightly that nothing can be accomplished, and the property owners will be left to the mercy of the CCRWQCB for individual enforcement.

If the 218 vote fails, the county will run faster than the speed of lightening to get out of the situation, Blakeslee (now hiding) will be off the hook, and the LOCSD will be left holding the empty bag of insolvency.

It may happen even sooner, depending on the ruling of the bankruptcy judge.

Ron said...

Ann wrote:

"Ripley later came in and clearly identified a whole lot of sites, including more than 2 that WOULD WORK quite well, thank you"

On 4/2/07, I sent the following e-mail to Dana Ripley:
- - -
Hello Dana,

I was hoping you could answer a quick question for me.

In the Tri-W Coastal Development Permit, it says:

"CZLUO Section 23.08.288d allows public facilities within ESHA only where there is no other feasible location."

So, naturally, I'm confused.

If your Tech Memo #2 puts the Tri-W site dead last in potential site rankings, then why did the previous design team conclude that the Tri-W site, with lots of ESHA, was the only "feasible location" for a wastewater treatment facility in Los Osos?

Is that true? Is the Tri-W site the only "feasible location" for a wastewater treatment facility in Los Osos?

As always, thanks for your time,
Ron
- - -

and, on 4/2/07, Dana Ripley replied:

- - -
Ron, the simple answer is no – there is AT LEAST one other feasible location in our opinion – Site D (Giacomazzi parcel). This was confirmed by the NWRI panel in December 2006 (pdf attached), as follows:

3.3.1 There are two potential plant locations for the treatment facility: in-town or out-of-town, each with their own implementation challenges.  

3.3.2 Given the number of problematic issues with the downtown site, it is the unanimous opinion of the Panel that an out-of-town site(s) is a better alternative.
- - -

I mean it, Tri-W needs to go the way of Andre1, pronto. If the permit expires at 11:59:59 p.m. on August 11th, then at 12:00:01 a.m. on August 12th, the Tri-W site needs to be removed from consideration.

Could someone please direct a TAC member or two to this post.

Ann wrote:

"The only fixed "assessment" vote was that small amount for design and land purchase."

And even THAT assessment vote stinks to high heaven. That was the vote where Nash-Karner, Buel, and, maybe the rest, I'm not sure on that one, commissioned a public opinion "study" where they had a research firm phone hundreds of Los Osos property owners -- and the people making the phone calls were instructed to "terminate" the phone call if the respondent wasn't a property owner, so it was only property owners involved in the study, and it was only property owners that were voting on that assessment (translated: targeting) -- and tell them wildly inaccurate information about the project and its assessment. And used LOCSD tax money to do it. So sleazy, and likely illegal (any Stanson v. Mott fans out there?).

I wrote about that here.

Ann wrote:

"But guess who we’re stuck with? Right, Roger Briggs who runs into the barn carrying a flaming torch, armloads of tinder-dry hay, tossing cherry bombs everywhere, yelling GEE!HAW!FINES!FINES!FINES!YER ALL GONNA DIE IN THE STREEETS LIKE DAWGS!
And then stands there looking puzzled while the mustangs run amok and tear the barn down and says, “Whaaattt? Whadda I do?”"


So damn funny. My favorite part? The "Right" crack. Like, "Yea, I guess everyone already knows who we're stuck with."

Now, I'm certainly no horse whisperer, but I know you can determine a lot about a horse's demeanor by looking at their eyes. You can tell when a horse has "calm" eyes and when a horse has "spooked" or "wild" eyes, and if you ever come across a horse with "wild" eyes, back the hell away.

So, I'm pretty good a detecting the calm/wild eye thing. It's the first thing I look for when I come across a horse, close up... Want to hear something interesting, especially in the context of Ann's main post? The day or so after the recall election in 2005, KSBY conducted a brief interview with Roger Briggs outside of a LOCSD meeting, and take one guess at what I immediately noticed -- wild eyes. I was struck by how mad he was at that interview. I still remember it, clearly, because of his demeanor. His forehead was scrunched, and his eyes were wild, and if someone wants to go back and get that footage, you'll see exactly what I mean.

If you ever want to see a great example of "calm" eyes, watch a professional, PGA golfer being interviewed, and Tiger Woods is a perfect example. Every single professional golfer has calm eyes. They have to, if you think about it. They blink slow. They're not darting all over the place. They focus. They're very, very calm.

You know who has wild eyes? George Bush. I bet his golf game sucks.

Richard wrote:

"The LOCSD has received a letter from the CC staff asking the LOCSD to advise them regarding the district's intent on ending or extending the Tri-W permit."

You know, if I turn and catch the wind just right, I'm stating to get the scent of sweet, sweet, validation. (Oh, is that advice going to be great.)

4crapkiller said...

To All and especially Noel King:

AB 2701 states:

(c) The county may undertake any efforts necessary to construct
and operate a community wastewater collection and treatment system to
meet the wastewater collection and treatment needs within the
district. These efforts may include programs and projects for
recharging aquifers, preventing saltwater intrusion, and managing
groundwater resources to the extent that they are related to the
construction and operation of the community wastewater collection and
treatment system. These efforts shall include any services that the
county deems necessary, including, but not be limited to, any
planning, design, engineering, financial analysis, pursuit of grants
to mitigate affordability issues, administrative support, project
management, and environmental review and compliance services. The
county shall not exercise any powers authorized by this section
outside the district.


Please notice the last sentence.

What the hell is going on here?

Paavo has stated that the county can put this sewer anyplace they want. But obviously, according to law, it cannot do anything outside of the geographical limits of the district.

If the 218 Vote passes, will the LOCSD have to be dissolved to put the sewer "Out of Town" or the geographical limits extended?

Is the county violating the law by considering sites "Out of Town" or systems that WOULD HAVE TO BE "Out of Town". "Out of town" means outside of the geographical limits of the district.

Level playing field? Smoke and mirrors!

4crapkiller said...

To Noel King:

And you would wish to recover expenses of your reports and staff time from the property owners of the district when you are in violation of the law by considering sites outside the district?

Richard LeGros said...

Hi Mike,

#1. Without the permitted project, the FEIR is abandoned too; hence NO OFFICIAL PROJECT.

WRDA will only disperse money to official projects.

There is no doubt that Tri-W is still an option....but until the County decides which option to adopt, along with a FEIR to define the project, there is NO OFFICAL PROJECT. If the County does not adopt an official project prior to the current WRDA bill being approve, the rpooject will not be elible for WRA money this time aroune.....maybe a future WRA bill to come out in 2008.

#2. You assume that the County will go with Tri-W. If they do use Tri-W, only a portion (aroune $2M-3M) of the $24M will be lost. If the County adopts another project, most of the $24M investment (less money received from land sales) will be lost.

#3 GOOD, we agree

#4. With the permit terminated, the Tri-W project does not exist. However, the decision of what the County does with Tri-W is in limbo...but not the current permit.
If Tri-W is selected by the County, the claims would be moot. If the LOCSD wants to avoid those claims ($3M+), they will have to support the County if they chose Tri-W.

I am sure others have thoughts about the consequences of losing the Tri-W permit. Let's hear them.

Regards, Richard LeGros

4crapkiller said...

Richard:

We posted at roughly the same time. What is your read on my post about 2701?

Mike Green said...

Ann wrote: (snicker):
GAWD MAH PETUNIAS WILL HAFTA BE TORN UP GAAAAHHH WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!

That is so funny, KUDOS! Wait! Crap, in order to save water I tore up my petunias and planted cactus!

Somebody is gonna earn their money fer sure!

Shark Inlet said...

Ron,

Boy it would be nice if you could show us anywhere on the TriW property that is currently ESHA. If you can't it would seem that your argument about TriW not working sort of falls flat even if it were theoretically solid. That the CCC would ever approve a development on ESHA ... like they already did for TriW once ... would suggest that they're flexible on the rule you keep citing as proof that TriW will never work. The argument you're making is only sound if there aren't compelling reasons for developing ESHA property. If the County comes up with good reasons (like cost perhaps) for developing property that is not currently ESHA in any way it would seem that the CCC will approve.

On another matter, Ron ... No response from Monowitz yet? Hmmmmm ... I would think that someone who you claim is a fan of your reporting would be pretty quick to offer up a quote.

Shark Inlet said...

Richard (or at least the one who claims to be Ann calls the one who claims to be Richard) ...


Even if the CCC staff sends a letter to the LOCSD asking their intent, I don't believe the LOCSD is under any legal obligation to respond. I am I incorrect? Is there some aspect of the earlier CDP that requires the LOCSD to respond to such requests? If not, if the board wants to act like weasels and essentially take a huge action by taking no action.

On the matter of money from the feds ... considering the money isn't a "for sure" yet ... and considering the County will be holding a 218 vote in a few months ... if the vote is "yes", won't the WRDA money essentially be just as likely as if the LOCSD had asked for an extension?


Note: no matter what your answers, I consider the neglect to request an extension to the CDP to be a massive betrayal of the PZ by the LOCSD board. Even if the LOCSD boardmembers don't like the TriW project, if the County determines it is the best and cheapest project after a survey of the PZ homeowners, had they extended the permit it would definitely make the eventual County project cheaper. That they could have requested an extension at no cost yet chose to possibly make my life more expensive strikes me as just plain self-serving on their part. But what is new from the board who promised to "move the sewer, no matter what it costs"? I feel that they are either really dumb or really more concerned with getting their way than in doing the best for their district.

Ugh!

Richard LeGros said...

Hi Shark inlet,

I too doubt the CSD is legally obligated to respond to the CC on the permit status.

But as you wrote, their action/inaction is extremely bad form on the part CSD GM and board....especially when their own 'Contract with Los Osos' promises full public review of all issues of importance to our community as well as promising a fully transparent and responsive government.

Worse, the boards inaction regarding the CSD's most valuable asset will have consequences that we have just begun to understand....consequences which will drive up costs and needlessly prolong the pollution of our water supply. Further, the board has addded fodder to any lawsuit against the CSD and/or board members.

WRDA money is never a sure thing until the President's signiture is dry on the WRDA Bill. As for qualifying for the grants, without an official project with a FEIR we will not have any hope of receiving a dime in grants. No, WRDA's $34 million dollars line item for Los Osos is gone forever under this current WRDA bill. I hope that Ms. Capps has the stamina and resolve to help the County (once they adopt a project FEIR) to get WRDA money in future appropriation bills.

Meanwhile, all we can do is relax, sit back and watch our CSD flounder around as incompetence destroys it; and witness how the pieces are put back together by the County. All we can do at this point is make sure the 218 vote passes.

I agree....."UGH!"

Regards, Richard LeGros

4crapkiller said...

To sharky:

Well, churadogs is not identified as ANN. All along, I have assumed that the clearly mindless twit posting as "churadogs" was Ann. As a result I have been relatively kind. I owe Ann a big apology and I apologize.

Heck, I could have been responding to JJJJJJJJJJJOOOOOOOEY. Or perhaps DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOGAN. Even AlOOOOOOOOOOOOOON. Or perhaps BARRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOW.

But even more likely to BING, BING, BONG Ron Crawford using another name. They seem to post alike.

Signed, CRAAAAAAAAAAAPKIIIIIILER.

Don't you think this is stupid, I surely do.

Conspiracy Boy said...

Mike Green:

After decades of study, the EPA declared it prefers decentralized systems to traditional centralized wastewater facilities -- they create less impact on the community, provide superior cleanup of wastes and avoid the massive discharge flows at single location.

But you know better than the EPA, right?

Also, MANY professionals recognize the burden gravity imposes on residents here. Each and every home and business will be directly affected by the challenging construction of the gravity collection system, which must be laid up to 20 to 28 feet deep in unstable in a unstable sand dunes and areas of high ground water.

You are not grasping the difficult and massive intrusion the big gravity system will impose over the next 24 to 60 months.

Again, THE COUNTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUTTING MONEY ASIDE ALL THESE YEARS FOR OUR SEWER PLANT. They've collected all this property tax money and could have stuck some in the bank to collect interest to put towards a sewer that they washed their hands from after they couldn't just lien the homes (like they tried to) after 1996 when Prop 218 passed.

Pandora saved the county's ass by forming the CSD. It was a clever trick to pull on the people here when the county could have paid, but along comes the CSD and then the homeowners here have to pay, and pay for the biggest sewer that money can buy. It's not right that the county got off the hook completely. There must have been a real sweetheart deal with the BOS and the developers who built over 1140 homes in the PZ --

How in the world do you expect people to trust the county when they've done nothing but screw Los Osos?!?

Lastly, maybe you can answer since nobody else would: What branch of the state will come in and take over our project and have us pay without a vote (if the 218 fails?) This particular threat has surfaced by bloggers and Gail (I've asked LeGros, CrapKiller, etc.) but can't get this addressed at all, so I'll try yet again!

Mike said...

"Each and every home and business will be directly affected by the challenging construction of the gravity collection system, which must be laid up to 20 to 28 feet deep in unstable in a unstable sand dunes and areas of high ground water."

You are very mistaken or deliberatly trying to deceive!

Quite frankly, your trenching depth estimates are so out of the realm of reality that all you have done is prove you know absolutely nothing about underground construction and all you are doing is grasping for straws in an attempt to spread hysteria.

Go talk to Peterson's Excavation and Al's Septic. 20 to 28 ft deep, you are really out to lunch with that comment!

M said...

Talk about obstructionist! Crapkiller, how long have you been obstructing the process by shilling for Tri-W all these years? Richard, Shark Inlet, Crapkiller, why don't you all just back away from it. Richard, to hear you talk about how this Board should be led away in shackles, after what your ilk did to this community, and are still wreaking havoc on, is disgusting. Leave us alone.
Sincerely, M
P.S. Not to be confused with Maria Kelly, Shark.

Mike said...

They should be thrown in jail for the financial robbery they have done to this community!

Mike Green said...

CB pontificated:
Lastly, maybe you can answer since nobody else would: What branch of the state will come in and take over our project and have us pay without a vote (if the 218 fails?) "

CB, this is what I believe would happen, in 2011 the water board will enforce the CDO/CAO, the cost of that enforcement will be heinous FAR more than the options offered now.
Now, since the State and no other agency would be in the driver's seat I'll give you one guess what their solution would be( hint look what the water board is doing NOW) The choice will be simple, ZERO DISCHARGE or MOVE Until a water treatment system (that they approve of) is on line.
If you have any documentation different, bring it out.

Shark Inlet said...

I would suggest the LOCSD ought to be telling us now what they intend to do should a 218 vote fail.

If this is a choice to go with the County (at about $200/month total) or to go with the LOCSD (with a cost that no one can even guess) it would be nice to get a more fleshed out idea of the other option.

Until the LOCSD tells us what they'll do it would seem the wisest choice would be to go with the County.

Mike Green said...

I would suggest that a certain boneless fish has lost it's marbles.

The last thing Los Osos needs right now is any kind of "plan" emanating from the LOCSD board.

Silence is golden.

4crapkiller said...

To M:

I do not like this situation any more than you do.
I do not want to pay any more than you do.
I do not want to board my rental units and put hard working tenants on the street any more than you would like to see this done.
I do not want to lose the income, you do not want to lose your home because you feel you cannot pay the bill, and you may not be able to.
I am sorry that you have believed in the promises of the Schicker board.
I am sorry that the insolvency of the LOCSD has occured because of their decisions as advised by questionable lawyers.
I and others have warned through the years that there were unintended consequences, and my warnings have fallen on deaf ears. The warnings have not just come from me, they have come from the regulating boards.
I am sorry that a law had to be passed to correct an impossible situation when the LOCSD board voted to stop the sewer, and I am sorry that you probably voted for the recall based upon false promises.
I am sorry that I voted to establish the LOCSD. However, I never fought the county on the establishment of a sewer originally.
There is nothing but sorrow here. But you are one stupid twit to believe that I caused this.
And now, when the unintended consequences of LOCSD Board actions becoming clear, you blame people who brought the problem to light.

You made your decisions, voted according to what you believed based upon what idiots have told you for political advantage. Live with it! You will pay for it. All property owners will pay for it!

Now, were you duped or not? We all sit with 20/20 hindsight. Shame on you, twit! Blind?

Churadogs said...

Conspiracy Boy sez:"Bottom line is that there is no cap on anything if this 218 is approved."

There was no cap on the service fees & etc on the Tri W project either. It was an unsecured loan, no 218 vote, was supposed to be paid back via operating service fees & etc. That was my point.

Steve said...

Richard LeGros said... "The CC letter requires an ACTION by the LOCSD board"

Richard, wrong again...

The CC letter ASKS for action... if none is take then the permit expires.

Steve said...

Richard LeGros says... "Honestly, how an a rational decision be made without data."

HAHAHAHAHAHAAAA.... OHHH.. HAHAHAHAHA!!! FUNNY!!!

Is this the.. HAHAHAHAHA... same Richard LeGros... HAHAHAHAAA!!!.. that used to be on the LOCSD Board... HHHAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!

That's too much... Stop It!!!

Steve said...

Richard again... "3. Without a permitted project, the LOCSD is now entirely out of the Sewer business. After Saturday, the LOCSD will not have any valid reason to pursue WW issues."

Wrong AGAIN... aren't you getting tired?

Doesn't the county plan on handing the project over to the LOCSD after construction?

Don't you think the LOCSD should have some say in a project that they are responsible for the day-to-day operations of??

TCG said...

Regarding: What is the CSD alternative if the 218 vote fails and the County sends the project responsibility back to the CSD.

The County staff said that next Tuesday they will be reviewing the fine screening report and a detailed plan for how they will proceed after the election if it passes.

This would be a good time for the CSD to put up their detailed plan for if the vote fails, so we can compare them.

Some people out here seem to believe that the CSD could simply cut a sweetheart deal with Orenco, who would obtain project financing, design and build the project and operate it. Without passing any judgement on this approach, who would do the work necessary to get grant funding, do a serious CEQA process, do all of the other work required to interact with all of the regulatory agencies, arrange for the HCP, complete the HCP and all of the other dozens of conditions of the necessary permits, obtain and pay for project insurance, obtain the necessary property for the project and, if necessary, use eminent domain to get it, etc., etc.?

The CSD does not have the technical or the financial resources to do all of this, and I don't believe that they have the ability to obtain them.

All of the critics out there--is there really an alternative? Failing to pass the upcoming 218 vote would be the most short-sighted and irresponsible decision that this community has made, and we have certainly made some doozies in the past.

4crapkiller said...

To Steve:

AB 2701:

"(7) It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this section
and amending Section 61105 to authorize the County of San Luis Obispo
to design, construct, and operate a wastewater collection and
treatment project that will eliminate these discharges, particularly
in the prohibition zone, to avoid a wasteful duplication of effort
and funds, and to temporarily prohibit the Los Osos Community
Services District from exercising those powers."

Please notice the last sentence.

Richard LeGros said...

Steve,

CSD's operate off of dedicated funds (from taxes or service fees) used to provide specific services. The CSD is out of the sewer business because it is not empowered with any waste water services or powers (per AB2701); and does not have a dedicated source of revenue to pay for anything related to the design or construction of a sewer.
No cash, no play.

AB 2701 specifically prohibits the CSD from spending funds on sewer-related issues. As for sewer services being returned to a future CSD, that will happen only if the County decides to give a completed sewer back to the CSD (if it survives). Meanwhile, the waste water project is entirely in the hands of the County.

Regards, Richard LeGros

PS: We are all waiting for you to stop your personal attacks against other bloggers. They are quite tiresome in light of the real issues facing Los Osos.

Conspiracy Boy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Conspiracy Boy said...

To Mike:

You said, "Quite frankly, your trenching depth estimates are so out of the realm of reality that all you have done is prove you know absolutely nothing about underground construction and all you are doing is grasping for straws in an attempt to spread hysteria...."

Come on Mike, this information came out of TAC's fine/rough screening report.

Spread hysteria? Come on, this information came from a top professional who's company works with sewers (gravity) in this country and all over the world.

This top professional says: "Also, MANY professionals recognize the burden gravity imposes on residents here. Each and every home and business will be directly affected by the challenging construction of the gravity collection system."

You just can't handle the truth.

9:37 AM, August 10, 2007

Shark Inlet said...

Conspiracy Boy and Ann are both correct...

If the project costs more than the amount we agree to via an assessment, the money will be obtained and repaid somehow.

For example, if the 218 vote passes and we agree to, say $30k each (for a total project cost of $150M) but the project ends up costing $170M, we'll have to agree on a later 218 vote to borrow the additional $20M if we want that money paid on our taxes. If we vote "no" I am sure the County will just borrow it in some other way and add it to our monthly bill.

The 218 is a guarantee on the maximum amount on the assessment but not on the maximum project costs. If you want a guarantee on the maximum monthly bill before you vote you won't get it ... ever.

Richard LeGros said...

CB,

Your claim that the gravity sewer lines have to be placed in 20-28 feet deep trenches is not validated by the facts.

The facts are that if you review the actual final (read permitted) gravity sewer system layout that was being built as part of the Tri-W project, you will see that over 90% of the trenching for sewers were less than 10 feet in depth (most averaging 7 feet deep). Less than 7% was to be laid in trenched 10 feet to 20' deep with the remaining 2-3% laid in ttrenches 20-28'.

Also, who is the "sewer professinal" your are 'quoting'.

Regards, Richard LeGros

PS: We are all waiting for you to stop your personal attacks against other bloggers. They are quite tiresome in light of the real issues facing Los Osos.

Steve said...

Crappy wrote..." '... to temporarily prohibit the Los Osos Community Services District from exercising those powers.'

Please notice the last sentence."

I am noticing the last sentence... especially the word "temporarily".

Are you trying to make the case that the County does NOT plan to transfer the sewer project back to the LOCSD for day-to-day operations?

Because the LOCSD will be responsible for future operations, maintenance, repair, billing, etc. it is very important that they vigorously participate in the process now.

Mike said...

Steve, you are "assuming" there will still be a CSD. You may also be of the impression that should a CSD still remain, that the Directors would be of similar financial bent as we see today?

Just my opinion, but I would not be surprised to see a more financially responsible group of Directors after the coming rounds of lawsuits and that's "IF" a CSD survives as a local government.

Richard LeGros said...

Hi Everyone,

Seems to me that the CSD is very broke as they cannot afford Insurance for CSD operations.
Read the legal notice from the CSD that I just posted on the Tribune web site.

Go to sanluisobispo.com....click the "discussion Boards" tab and search for the blog string "is the laspe of the Tri-W permit a ploy"

Regards, Richard LeGros

Mike said...

Hi Richard: To be clear about that, it's a "Motion" to the United States Bankruptcy Court from the LOCSD asking the Court to allow the CSD to make monthly payments (at 10.35% interest) to finance all the insurance needs of the District.

Further the monthly payments were already scheduled to begin August 1, 2007? I don't recall that little item on the Agenda, do you?

In other words, the LOCSD is too broke to be able to pay the annual insurance premium and is begging the Bankruptcy Court for a time pay plan. Oh yes, if any monthly payment becomes 10 days late, the insurance is automatically lifted. Of course the legal folks will continue to be paid, including PZLDF Sullivan, just not the insurance. Great management Chuck, Lisa, Julie!

Goodbye, we're at the end of the fiscal mismanagement of this Board of Directors.

4crapkiller said...

So what happens if the Bankruptcy court denies the motion?

How does the LOCSD remain in existance without insurance?

Well the LAFCO will not dissolve them because of county liability issues. They will not even allow a vote to dissolve by the property owners. I have heard nothing about a 218 Vote to save the district.

I wonder what will happen when the Bankruptcy judge declares the LOCSD insolvent?

Where is the audit promissed us by the legislature and Blakeslee? Where IS Blakeslee? Hiding?

Where is the grand jury, and DA?

The problems just get worse every day.

Shark Inlet said...

Here is a direct link to the document Richard cited.

Mike Green said...

Crappy, good luck getting those questions answered.
I've been asking them even before there was a crapkiller.

Conspiracy Boy said...

Richard LeGros:

You said, "We are all waiting for you to stop your personal attacks against other bloggers. They are quite tiresome in light of the real issues facing Los Osos..."

Just who is "we are all?" Who are you speaking for?

If you can't handle it -- tough.

Where have I made personal attacks against bloggers (besides you of course) anyway?

And so what if I'm just a little upset how you screwed the community. You, Gordon, and Stan-that-ran, started a project before a recall just so it would look like there was no turning back, cut all the trees, ruined the Tri-W site etc. You three could have waited. You could have listened to half of the community. Maybe there wouldn't have had to be the recall IF you three would have listened. But you had an agenda.

You did this to Los Osos. These "real issues" you talk about were caused by you.

Mike said...

It is going to be interesting when the Bankruptcy Judge asks where the money has gone these past 12 months, why payouts have gone to an attorney to continue fighting the State CCRWQCB, and just where is any plan for resolving the creditors claims?

CK asks a very good question, what will happen if the Bankruptcy Judge denies the Motion?

4crapkiller said...

To Mike Green:

This is an unbelievable cluster.

The recall board ran on sunshine and light and everything is very very dim. You would think they would communicate with the people that pay the bills (property owners).

Mike said...

Hmmm, would Tri-W look any better with high-rise condos? You should ask Jeff Edwards and his mistress of the moment.

CB, you really are out of touch with reality: BIG pipes theory, 28 ft deep trenches, what's next in your line of hystria?

I'm damn glad the past Board had the guts and the brains to start the sewer project! and I don't see where they ever filed for bankruptcy. No Sir, this entire fiasaco was brought on by all you wonderful obstructionists who's only plan was to delay, delay, delay and price most of us out of our homes. I certainly hope to see a few of you in prison where you sincerely belong!

Richard LeGros said...

CB,

Your hysteria over '28 foot deep trenching' is debunked in light of the actual trenching depths as clearly illustrated in the Tri-W gravity sewer system engineering documents.

Also, who is the 'sewer professinal' you are quoting?

Regards, Richard LeGros

PS: My prior PS stands.

Conspiracy Boy said...

Richard LeGros:

Why don't you try to tell the truth, it's good for the soul... maybe a little helpful rather than hurtful...(like leaking from the bankruptcy case committee...)

Let me ask you a couple of questions:

1. Where and why would only a portion of the community/homeowners have to pay (exclusively) to pave and re-pave community streets? Just wondering.

2. What branch of the state of California or what agency can just come in and put in a sewer, make us pay, without a vote (which has been threatened recently) if the 218 fails? Just wondering.

Richard LeGros said...

CB,

1. Please clarify your question as it is vague.

2. A good question to which I would like to know the answer. The State can do just about any legal action it needs to in order to enforce the law. As you ponder it, why not contact the State and research the question. Later you can blog us all to inform us of the answer you find.

Regards, Richard LeGros

PS: Who is the 'sewer professional' you quoted?

Mike Green said...

Crappy, count your blessings,

Silence is Golden

4crapkiller said...

To Mike Green:

Silence is Leon Goldin, head of the finance committee, who lives in Cabrillo, and I doubt he owns any property in the PZ. He is an ex lawyer, married to an ex judge.

Ha!

Mike Green said...

Silence is contemplative reflection without distraction.


OhhhhhhM Cargo Cargo Cargo come!

Conspiracy Boy said...

Richard LeGros:

My first question is too vague for you Richard? I'll try again.

Why do just the PZ owners have to pay to pave and re-pave the roads of Los Osos? That's part of the assessment, right? Are you paying in Cabrillo? Why does only a portion of the town have to pay? Everyone benefits from roads Richard.

The second question, I shouldn't have to research. It's YOUR people who have threatened "the state will come in a take over and build it!" where does that come from? Are they just blind threats? I've asked over and over from CrapKiller and others and can't get the answer. I've heard only the DWR could do it and they told me they only build dams.

You're the smart guy. You're the "leader" of the big, fat, ugly, over-priced studid gravity sewer that's way over the top for this town.

P.S. I'll tell you who the sewer professional is when you answer my questions.

Conspiracy Boy said...

Richard LeGros:

You said,
"Your claim that the gravity sewer lines have to be placed in 20-28 feet deep trenches is not validated by the facts...."

First of all Richard, you admitted a portion would go 28 feet. You've admitted some go 20 feet. So, where was I wrong?

The TAC's pro/con said 28 feet too.

So, why do you claim hysteria?!

You speak out of both sides of your mouth Richard.

Conspiracy Boy said...

Richard LeGros:

You said,
"Your claim that the gravity sewer lines have to be placed in 20-28 feet deep trenches is not validated by the facts...."

First of all Richard, you admitted a portion would go 28 feet. You've admitted some go 20 feet. So, where was I wrong?

The TAC's pro/con said 28 feet too.

So, why do you claim hysteria?!

You speak out of both sides of your mouth Richard.

Mike said...

The hysteria is YOU taking an EXTREMIST VIEW of anything YOU can find to accentuate YOUR personal desire to stop any sewer. Less than 2% of the entire project MIGHT (or MIGHT NOT) have a maximum excavation exceeding 20 feet.

BUT, what YOU want us to believe and maybe in your crazed mind, you actually believe, that all pipe would be excavated to more than 20 feet. Hell yes, a very minor lenths will POSSIBLY be excavated that deed. SO WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is your EXTREMIST VIEW that makes YOU such an easy target for distortion! If I were to run around saying YOU were going to die, I would be 100% correct, YOU are going to die! I just didn't also point out that you wouldn't be dying today or tomorrow even if I hoped you would! That's the same technique Lisa and Julie have fought against any sewer, pure distortion of facts, it's the same way Ron Crawford has kept his heart (if he has one) ticking and Ann has fallen right in lock step in her hystrical wailing against Tri-W, the RWQCB and anything that might bring Los Osos into the modern era! All you extremists pick minute details or possibilities and blow them up to hideous moutains against any reality. YOU absolutely have to be right or you have pull out all the theatrics you can employ to prove that one little point is the over riding straw that breaks the back of the project you personally don't want. and if that doesn't work, you run off with some other tale of the sky is falling or we're all going to die like dogs! BFD!!!!! You simply refuse to understand that someone else just might be correct and you just might be wrong!

Well friends, Los Osos will have a sewer and thanks to all the delays and financial bankruptcy brought on COMPLETELY by EXTREMISTS, we will have one of the most expensive sewers in the USA.

M said...

"obsess" -to besiege, to haunt or trouble in mind; harass; preoccupy.
"obsession" the fact or state of being obsessed with an idea, desire, emotion, etc.
Sound like a few bloggers on this site?
Nice going Crap. Go to name calling with someone that doesn't share your views. At least it was an inoffensive, almost playful name. Oddly enough, I agree with some of your politics on issues other than the sewer.
I do take offense though at being thought of as someone that was duped into believing campaign promises. Who in this day and age could possibly believe in campaign promises?
No, I voted the way I did because I made up my own mind.
Think how much better things would be right now if they hadn't started construction on Tri-W when they did. 11 million dollars in fines would have been nothing to overcome compared to what were faced with today. Construction would probably be nearly starting now on a different project had it not been for all of the interference.
Anyone know how many individual homes on the gravity pipe system would have to have pumps?

Mike said...

Yup, without the "interference", the sewer would be more than half way complete by now.

Richard LeGros said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Richard LeGros said...

Gee m,

Think of what Los Osos would be like today if the recall had failed.

1. A completed WW project with:
+ A park
+ Water basin being cleaned.
+ Newly paved streets.
+ Salt water intrusion being
curtailed.
+ Water supply stabilized.
+ An operational Habitat
Conservation Plan.
+ An operational Septic Tank
Management Plan for
properties outside the PZ.
+ An operational Water Fixture
Retrofit Program.

2. A healthy CSD with:
+ No bankruptcy
+ All reserves intact.
+ No RWQCB fines.
+ No CDO's or enforcement
actions.
+ Few, if any, lawsuits against
the CSD.
+ A capable and efficient CSD
Staff.
+ The respect of the
community, the County and
the State.
+ Have money to complete a
water master plan to secure
our water supply.
+ Lower Governance costs.

3. A Community of families that:
+ Can plan their financial
future as the costs of the
WWTP is know.
+ Stable and higher real
estate values.
+ The Los Osos sewer war would
be over and done with.

So you see M, the difference between the old and new boards are that the old board honored the community’s contractual arrangements and requirements in order to keep ALL of Los Osos (regardless of their position on the sewer) protected .............

While the new board refused to honor the communities obligations, refused to honor legal and binding contracts that the prior boards had entered into (some going back to 1999), surrounded themselves with incompetent management, consultants and attorneys, and refused to accept that the law applies to them.

So starting the project did not cause the damage to the CSD, it was the ill-conceived attempt to stop it that caused misery to rain down upon Los Osos.

Regards, Richard LeGros

M said...

Richard, actually today would look like this in Los Osos.
Roads would be torn up with cosmetic coverups. Construction would be halted in area's where archialogical finds occur, we would still have a $200,000 PIO, we would have staging area's throughout the PZ, roads would be returned to as is conditions, etc.
Not quite the rosy picture you paint.
Sincerely, M

Shark Inlet said...

Based on hearing Paavo recently and reading the cost estimates in the County Staff/TAC report, it seems that Richard is both clearly right but still could be open to charges of being wrong.

What do I mean?

If we ignore the bankruptcy costs entirely (and those cost won't just go away), it would seem that the County could most likely get a sewer online by about 2013-2015 and it will only cost us about what TriW would have cost us. (Note: additional delay ... say by voting no on a 218 ... will cause costs to increase.)

However, we won't get a park, our CSD will still be in financial ruin if it even exists and we'll still be on the hook for various debts of the CSD.

On the other hand, the collection system might not be gravity and the treatment plant might not be MBR at TriW and if it is some other system there will likely be fewer trips to haul sludge.

Has it been worth it? For those who value an out of town plant over in town and don't mind paying for it will consider the county process a success. The County process will likely end up selecting something other than TriW because the numbers are pointing that way. (Although I am not sure whether Paavo was using the TriW bids a few years back, adjusted for inflation or current County estimates of what they would expect new bids on the TriW job would be when he was comparing to other cost estimates.) But until more design work and even bids on contracts actually come in, we'll not know exactly what will happen.

How can Richard both be wrong and right? If SLO chooses something other than TriW, Richard will look silly to some because the LOCSD board didn't arrive at the same conclusion. However, even if that does happen, the debts necessary to get to that point are actually raising our costs a lot but in a somewhat less obvious way. Suppose that the LOCSD gets out of debt by borrowing some $40M to settle with various debtors at an 8% interest rate over 30 years ... that results in an additional $50-60 per month for each household in Los Osos.




A few additional side notes from what Paavo said ...

First, using design/build (i.e. Orenco) will require special legislation from the state but SLO is likely to ask the State to allow such so that if Orenco has the best package deal, we could go with them.

Second, the current SRF loan rate is 2.5% and the current bond rate SLO Co can get is about 5.5%. Borrowing at 2.5% over 20 years is about the same monthly payment as borrowing at 5.5% over 30 years. (Of course, neither can compete with borrowing at 2.5% over 30 years.) At those rates and terms, lumping the $7M we owe the SRF into a new SRF will save us money ... unless we were to go with STEP and the SRF program would require a whole bunch of additional electrical work that the SLO Co engineers feel is unnecessary in which case, borrowing on the open market over 30 years would be a better choice.

When Paavo mentioned "regional" it was in the context of building a Los Osos WWTF east of town that is large enough to be able to take septage trucked in from other communities. The benefit of doing this is that we could turn a profit on a small expansion of the plant. The drawback is that there would be more stinky trucks up and down LOVR.

One last thing from Paavo ... anyone who wants to pay off their assessment in full will be able to do so at any time ... thus the maximum decrease in home values should be limited to approximately the assessment value ... about $25k.

Richard LeGros said...

M,

+ Roads would be paved to like-new condition as costs to so were included in the Tri-W project costs.
+ The Project had an a plan to deal with archeological remains (approved by Native Americans, the State and Federal governments); also, prior to construction the CSD had Far Western Archeological conduct an in-depth archeological survey of Los Osos that collected and catalogued all artifacts found. This survey was the mitigation to allow other archeological artifacts (excepting human remains) found during excavation not to stop said excavations.

+ Staging areas would be near the end of their life; with the land to be restored to original condition upon completion of the project.

+ a PIO of $200,000 (?) is nothing compared to the $40,000,000 in debt the CSD has needlessly incurred (which you have to pay your part of ($8,000) as a property owner.

M, the picture you portray of a Los Osos where the recall had failed in not probable; nor is what you portray any way comparable to the reality of the terrible events that have transpired since the new CSD refused to honor the CSD legally binding contracts while they attempted to circumvent the law.

Regards, Richard LeGros

Maria M. Kelly said...

It is unfortunate that there are many like M in our community who absolutely believe that the current board has been the victim of agencies. They were not able to move forward with a project because there was nothing designed with any sort of cost analysis attached, yet claimed they had a cheaper project.

A lot has changed in the past 2 years and I believe that Richard's statements have far more chance of accuracy than anything that the CSD board stated.

As a homeowner in the PZ and a water customer, I resent having to pay for the mismanagement of the district. For the past 2 years, the people of the PZ, who are also CSD water customers, have been funding the financial decisions by the district in regards to settlements, new litigation and reserve depletion. Our water rates have been raised substantially due to the fact that the board has not stayed within the budgets they have set.

The CSD board are not victims. They have fostered their relationships with agencies and our community through their actions. What is most unfortunate is that this board is made up of a population of people who do not have the background to develop a project but continue to attempt to portray to the community that they do. The fear of arch sites stopping construction is another myth that Los Osos has had to endure. If M was interested in the larger discussion at hand, there are ways to mitigate those situations and would not have halted this project. The permits that we had were clear on how to handle those situations and anyone who told you otherwise had an agenda to stop any project from developing in Los Osos.

As a member of the community and a property owner, I believe our most financially secure path is through the county and the process.

I have always stated that the risks of focusing on a technology as being the "strongly held community value" has clouded the ultimate goal of protecting and preserving our water supply.

It is with great appreciation that I will continue to support the county and any community member who is willing to stand and speak and be a part of the Democratic voice. Too many voices have been silenced due to the culture of belittling and harassing any speaker who does not speak for the this board. This has silenced far too many members of this community and some of us will continue to stand for those who have become too tired to speak for themselves. Minority or not, there are many who will not allow themselves to be harassed with ongoing attempts of humiliation.

I am always surprised that Richard is willing to continue to be verbally obliterated but will always be appreciative of his willingness to speak - even if it is limited to the screen. I appreciate Richard and Shark and Mike Green and so on, because they will have the discussion and will discuss issues before making any assumptions.

Our community destruction lies deep in unfounded assumptions.

Richard LeGros said...

Hi All,

For those interested in the status of the State's audit of the LOCSD, this update is from the Taxpayer's Watch newsletter

WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO THAT STATE AUDIT?

When Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee's AB 2701 passed, one of the items that was initiated was a request for a State Audit of the Los Osos CSD finances to clarify what happened to all the State Revolving Fund money, how much was left, and the purposes SRF money was used for.

Many have asked what is happening with the Audit. TW's research has revealed the following:

The process is very much like moving a bill through the State Legislature (a process not far removed from David Copperfield's magic act).

The firs step is for a request for the "Joint Legislative Audit Committee" (JLAC) to take up the audit. That has been accomplished, but further action has become entangled in the current budget impasse going on in Sacramento.

Currently our legislators are in recess and will reconvene on August 20. At that time all in Sacramento will focus on resolving and passing a budget. To provide incentive to the politicians, it is expected that no other business will be allowed to move forward (including the Los Osos Audit) until a budget is passed.

This legislative session will end on September 15. Should the Budget impasse persist, or take considerable time to resolve, the JLAC audit of Los Osos finances will not likely begin until the winter months, at the earliest!


Regards, Richard LeGros

M said...

Well Maria, we know which side you stand with. My assumptions are wrong because I didn't discuss them with Richard, Shark, and Mike Green?
If i'm not mistaken, didn't Richard miss the mark by $46 million dollars on the estimate for Tri-W? He has just said earlier about the depth's of trench's for gravity pipes. Is he also an engineer or something that can read blueprints of this nature?
What about the picture in the 'then community park' in '2004 with 800 people standing behind a sign that read "Move The Sewer"?
Oh yea, you weren't here were you?
What's up the the loan application for the ill-conceived SRF loan where the 218 vote is N/A? Why is it applicable now?
What about the 218 vote that we did have in '2002 was it? Ballots collected at the CSD office. Non votes or ballots not cast considered yes votes. And we have an overwhelming 85% or something in consent. I don't know, i'm cynical.
What about Crapkiller posting that this 218 vote is public knowledge how you vote, and if you don't vote for the passage of 218 you can expect to be held liable for damages caused by your no vote?
If she was trying to scare me into voting yes on the 218, she can see how scared I am when she tries to collect.
I liked it better when this blog was annoymous posters. You could have fun guessing who was who. Now it's mostly filled with obsessive Tri-W supporters. Coincidentily with notices set to come out about the 218 vote.
Maria, you either weren't around for the meetings prior to this board, or you have a selective memory. Go back and look at the archival footage if you have a chance. Or, look at the LOCSD website for agenda setting (actually, i'm not sure if it would still be on there) and notice that there were probably 100 agenda motions by Julie Tacker and Lisa Shicter that never somehow found their way onto the agenda. Remember, these two were elected on an Move The Sewer agenda. Did Richard and others on the board pay any attention to our wishes?
Richard, I distinctly remember hearing Bruce Buell answer the question, "road's will be restored to as is conditions". I remember it well, because I can remember the groan in the crowd of probably 100 people in attendance. Last I saw there probably were about ten people in attendance at CSD meetings. Were we not saying at that time this had gone on too far and we had to stop it? Only to fall on deaf ears to the community. Richard can spout all he wants about how they simply followed the law. As far as i'm concerned, every official that has handled this situation has bungled it. Now you can say that I am simply blaming others or maybe put some credence into what i'm saying. I think I know which way that arguement would go with some of you.
Funny how if you're not pro Tri-W you're a twit, or no sewer, or backup everything the present board does.
Maybe i'm just pro-sewer at a site the majority of us can live with and pay for.
Sincerely M.
P.S. The recalled board brought us the highest per capita sewer in the nation.

Maria M. Kelly said...

Dear M,
The current board brought us the highest per capita bankruptcy in the nation. Infrastructure has value.

I would never call you a twit and I'm pro sewer period - not pro TriW.

I went to 2 meetings after the recall. One in November and 1 in January or February. I was so disgusted by how speakers were treated by the board and by the community watching. I had no idea who was on whose side but you know, I quickly figured it out and made my own decisions. The belittling I witnessed of members of this community was disgusting and unnecessary and when I was approached by 2 "move the sewer" folks to "join their side", I made my decision. No one was listening to anyone. You making the assumption that just because I appreciate the discussion means I'm only for one technology and one location is just another example of why so many have backed away from the discussion.

When the numbers from the county come out will you believe them? Are you ready to trust that that is one governmental agency that can bring us a project? Can you keep an open mind to hear why the numbers are what they are or are you going to listen to the group that will come in over the next few weeks and say that the numbers are rigged and they have a "better, cheaper, faster" solution?

I do not believe that a complete project is going to come from within our community. I do not believe that this community is at the point where they can put down their assumptions and agree to disagree and set aside their "beliefs". It is a no man's land and the damage will continue until this is laid to rest.

I anxiously await your reply.

Richard LeGros said...

M,

Regarding your last comments:

+I am an architect / engineer. And yes, I can easily read blueprints. The percentages re: trench depths I blogged earlier is accurate.

+It has been shown many times on this and other blogs as to why the SRF loan was completely legal; and did not require a second 218 vote. Reread them at your leisure.

+A new 218 vote is applicable now for if Los Osos wants a future SRF loan, the State will only grant it if the Los Osos property owner agree to use their property as collateral for a new SRF loan. Prior to the recall, the State needed only a Revenue Plan from the LOCSD showing how the service rates collected by the LOCSD from the future operational WWTP were adequate to pay back the State over 20 years.

With the passage of Prop 218 in 1996, it is now LAW that in assessment votes where property owners are placing a lien on their property to acquire money to construct infrastructure that all votes cast must clearly show the NAME of the voter; with said ballots kept on file forever. The law is written so that in the future the ballots may be studied by those challenging a 218 vote as to the vote's validity.
IF YOU DO NOT WANT YOUR NAME ON AN ASSESSMENT BALLOT, THEN PROP 218 (THE LAW) MUST BE CHANGED. So complain to the State legislature if you do not like having to be named on your ballot.

+The CSD has critical business to conduct in a timely manner. When Julie and Lisa flooded the CSD with agenda requests and as meetings were running long due to public comment, agenda items were prioritized in order of importance and timeliness.....hence the backlog list was created listing agenda topics to be discussed when there was time to do so. After the recall, not one of the items on that list was ever discussed by the new CSD...because the new CSD got rid of the list. Funny how now they never ask for anything to be agendized.

+The picture in the park was very nice. You have a great smile.

+I listened to every word spoken to me (and the old CSD board) at the CSD board meetings.
EVERYTHING

+I knew exactly how you and other ‘move the sewer’ folks felt and what you wanted me to do.
I UNDERSTOOD.

+I can say with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that what you asked the board to do was impossible.
To stop the project at ANY TIME between the day the assessment vote passed (Oct 2001) to the day of the recall election (Sept 2005) would have resulted in huge financial damages to the property owners (you) and the LOCSD. Because the new CSD board stopped the project, you can now see the type of damages I was warning of;

+The 2001 218 assessment vote was conducted completely legally. ONLY THOSE BALLOTS RETURNED WERE COUNTED. Ballots not returned were not counted (neither yes nor no)

Regards, Richard LeGros

Conspiracy Boy said...

Richard LeGros:

The (Federal) Bankruptcy judge ruled that the SRF loan was unsecured and the state would have to deal with it. Apparently she didn't fall for your "fees & charges" scam either!

We did have the right to a 218 vote on the Tri-W. You denied us our right to vote Richard! You failed to obey the law.

Now you're asking people to look at blogs to determine if the 218 was needed or not? Give us a break. A judge would have to decide and one already did. I think that judge would know if the loan was secured or not!

The 2001 vote was for $20 some million bond money Richard! That's it. Who are you trying to kid? BTW, the county never applied for the loan either. They liened PZ homes without notification to the homeowner!

Another question (even though you avoid my questions) is why the 200l 218 ballots weren't mail-in ballots (like the county is doing now?) Big question for me.

How about my other questions? Can't answer? I'll try again:

Why do just the PZ owners have to pay to pave and re-pave the roads of Los Osos? That's part of the assessment, right? Are you paying in Cabrillo? Why does only a portion of the town have to pay? Everyone benefits from roads Richard.

The second question, I shouldn't have to research. It's YOUR people who have threatened "the state will come in a take over and build it!" where does that come from? Are they just blind threats? I've asked over and over from CrapKiller and others and can't get the answer but still repeat the threat. I've heard only the DWR could do it and they told me they only build dams.

If you won't respond, maybe Maria can or will.

You Richard, are so full of shit and you live in some kind of fantasy world where you did nothing wrong or illegal...can you spell F-R-A-U-D?

Conspiracy Boy said...

Mike:

You stated: The hysteria is YOU taking an EXTREMIST VIEW of anything YOU can find to accentuate YOUR personal desire to stop any sewer..."

You are a liar. It's a definite lie on your part to say this. You went way over board (defending poor Richard I guess.)

I want a sewer that's right for Los Osos.

Gravity is not right for Los Osos according to EVERY single expert that has weighed in. There have been many. You've failed to produce one that say gravity is best for Los Osos!

The expert I quoted said pipes must be laid UP to 20 feet deep (a small percentage 28 feet per the pro/con analysis.)

So you feel you have to lie, ok, I'm used to that here. But that's all you have to sell your monster gravity project. That's the sad part!! ... same for Richard...

Conspiracy Boy said...

Mike:

Wow. You said: "You simply refuse to understand that someone else just might be correct and you just might be wrong!"

I go by the experts and professionals in the wastewater field. Your Tri-W gravity cheerleaders are not experts. You all are the ones who are wrong. The experts and professionals are right -- you're wrong.

What you are saying is that every single expert that has given their educated opinion is wrong!-- get a grip and deal with some truth.

You are a piece of work! (CrapKiller)...(Mike)...(Richard)..
I'm beginning to think you are all the same insane person!

4crapkiller said...

To M:

AHH, M, I am sorry I called you a twit in response to your attack on me. I am sorry that I think you were duped. I am sorry you are in denial even with 20/20 hindsight. I am sorry that you did not researched the laws which are clearly available on government sites before you voted. I am sorry that you are stuck in the past, and that in the past you never had the education or the intelligence to REALLY make a fully logical decision about anything.

Everything you say has been said before and proven in light of 20/20 hindsight to be mistaken. The worst thing is that you allied yourself with people of the same kind. And now you are in denial of your own stupidity. Well, I will tell you that much smarter and better educated were taken in on the recall vote.

I do not blame you. It is human nature to grasp for straws when looking at a large expense. It is human nature to think that doing nothing will make the problem go away.

I sat at the LOCSD meetings, saw the wild eyed people opposing it, never heard one opposition person come up with anything that was logical. All they did was oppose, and I knew through years of involvement with government, that logic and reason was required to change any course. You never did your homework, never read the law, never read what the regulating board was saying, but relied on the conspiracy theories, false information, and charges of corruption by Joey Racano and followers.

In the meantime, The only thing that has happened is that the LOCSD is insolvent in real time, and has yet to pay any fines. All we really are paying is increased water costs. The property owners money in reserves at the LOCSD has been spent to minimum levels. The board is worried how to keep the doors open.

And do not worry about paying the insurance, the LOCSD BOARD will take the swimming pool fund and spend it if they can, or borrow against it. (I really do not know if the money exists anymore).

In the meantime there is little that ANY of us can do about this impossible situation. I can bitch at you and you can bitch at me, and maybe the bitching will make us feel better.

The matter is in the courts, and with the county, and eventually again in the courts. Although we do have some say with the 218 vote, regardless, our teats are in a vice. The ultimate decision as to what will happen to us will come down to a very few people. AND you can be assured that they do not live in LOS OSOS. You can also be assured that they will NOT be listening to the same nut cases who have been so vocal in the community, or even the rational.

They will do as they please within the limits of the law. Nobody outside of those in Los Osos, who care about this, cares. They will tell you they do, to garner votes, cover their asses, and protect their political office. Perfectly normal.

So vote however you like, but don't try and push stupidity without documentation on me or others. Don't blame me for your foolishness. Blame the people who have been telling you "tall tales".

Where are you going to put the new modern plastic septic tank on your property?

KeepMHonest said...

Oh Brother Can You Spare a Brain Transplant!

Richard LeGros (aka Pinky LaGross) said... "Think of what Los Osos would be like today if the recall had failed..."

People reading this from outside our little scene should be made fully aware of the FACTS:

Pinky LaGross is a really, really BAD LIAR, and he's been lying for such a long time that he has convinced himself and a few of his "Taxpayers Waste" vigilantes that LIES are truth, FANTASY is reality and WRONG is right.

Moral of the Story: People who spend too much time alone tend to relive their mistakes over and over, cover them up with "what ifs" and blame everyone else for spoiling THEIR "Perfect Vision." This DELUSION is commonly found in those caught with their hand in the cookie jar. So, what we basically have here is Pinky, under house arrest, writing notes from his cell, hoping SOME UNSUSPECTING READER might feel half sorry for the CLOWN PRINCE OF JACKASSES!

Thank you for listening to this Community Alert. We now return you to your normally obsessive scheduled blogging until you pass out.

Shark Inlet said...

Conspiracy Boy and KeepMHonest,

I again wonder about the motivation the two of you have for your participation.

It seems as if you're spending more time and energy interacting with Richard in a way that shows your anger with him than in addressing the issues he raised in his comments here or even the issues we have in front of us today.

I can understand why some would view Richard as an enemy, but he's been far more polite to you both than either of you have been with him. Now, politeness is not the only important thing in a discussion like this ... factual accuracy and solid thinking should count as well. Unfortunately the two of you haven't really offered up a whole lot that would cause the unbiased yet still interested party to be convinced of your point of view over his.

I'm not trying to tell you to change your style ... it seems that the two of you aren't so very interested in doing that ... but I am trying to suggest that your style is making you look bad rather than making folks think poorly of Richard.


Of the issues raised, Conspiracy Boy mentions three things I would like to address.

First, the financing of TriW. CB asserts that a judge has determined that a 218 vote was needed for the SRF. Is this actually true? Which judge? When?

Second, the roads that would be dug up during sewer line installation should be re-paved appropriately. This is the same as when gas lines and fiber-optic lines are installed. It is part of the cost of construction and those who are benefiting from the construction should pay the fare. It is not as if the TriW plan was going to do unrelated roadwork.

Third, on the issue of whether the State can just waltz in and build something for us and then charge us to use it ... the state does all sorts of special legislation all the time. AB2701 took the project from the LOCSD and gave it to the County, an organization that didn't have a right to do the project until the special legislation. If the State wanted to take the project and give it to the University of California or the Department of Corrections, both groups have the planning staff who could handle this with ease. It would cost a whole bunch more than with the County ... but the State has really really deep pockets and could build it on their own dime (no 218 vote would be required) and then they could charge us monthly fees to recover their construction costs much like happens in other communities when they need sewer upgrades. The only difference here is that our upgrade is much larger than most.

As to your assertion that only DWR could do it ... I would suggest that whomever told you this was in error ... special legislation could give the project to even CalTrans. Maybe we could get John Fouche back on the job.

Mike said...

Some 218 things to consider and many thanks to Joe Sparks, Director of the LOCSD:

Posted on Sun, Aug. 12, 2007

The Proposition 218 assessment vote for homeowners in the Los Osos prohibition zone is rapidly approaching, and it is important to understand the ramifications of the assessment vote.

The assessment will provide funding to continue a wastewater project for homeowners in the prohibition zone. The project will provide special benefits to homeowners by improving the wastewater infrastructure and improving future water quality.

The assessment was never intended to provide a single specific project and certain final cost, nor could any assessment provide a certain final cost of a specific project. Detailed final costs can only be precisely determined when construction bids are obtained.

The project Fine Screening Report provides viable options for treatment, site selection, and effluent and solids disposal methods that can yield long-term, ongoing cost savings. Cost estimates are conservative, as opposed to past pre-election "low-balling" that resulted in the Los Osos Community Services District losing credibility.

Our community can have reasonable certainty in the following:

· Approval of the Proposition 218 assessment will allow our community, the county and the Regional Water Quality Control Board to pursue grants, secure competitive financing and pursue afford-ability goals at the state and federal levels.

· Approval of the assessment will allow the county to obtain competitive design bids for our project.

· Approval of the assessment will allow homeowners to come into compliance with state mandates for the prohibition zone and continue the progress being made toward improving the quality of the waters. I cannot emphasize enough that the groundwater of the Los Osos Basin belongs to the state of California, not Los Osos.

· Approval of the 218 assessment will allow us to address saltwater intrusion to the aquifers we use.

· Approval of the 218 assessment will allow our local government to guide beneficial disposal and water use practices.

· Approval of the 218 assessment will provide a means of resolution of the Chapter 9 bankruptcy for the Los Osos Community Services District.

· In short, approval of the 218 assessment continues a commitment and a plan for Los Osos' future.

History has shown the Los Osos Community Services District to be incapable of completing a solution for our wastewater infrastructure, and the district does not have the financial resources or staff to administer a project. Consider:

· The district has no wastewater reserves.

· Any attempt to manage and design a project will require borrowing funds and put already low water and fire reserves in jeopardy. Those reserves are committed to meet capital improvement obligations and assure levels of service.

· The district has no full-time, permanent general manager, and there is no funding in the budget to even manage or plan a wastewater project. Appropriate governance is for the district staff to manage a project, and not my fellow directors.

· The district has yet to repay approximately $400,000 borrowed from the Water Quality Trust Fund to fund the 2006 project report, and Ripley remains a major creditor of the district.

· The district has not repayed approximately $700,000 borrowed from the Bond Reserve Fund to make a bond redemption payment for September 2006. From October 2005 until April 2006, approximately $1.1 million in assessment revenue was collected by the district to make that payment, yet those funds were not available.

· The district is subject to enforcement of $10,000 per day for violations of the Basin Plan since the issuance of the last Administrative Civil Liability of Oct. 6, 2005 (disputed by the district) until present.

· Failure of the Proposition 218 assessment will result in financial and legal chaos and is asking for bounced checks from the district.

The county of San Luis Obispo, both before the formation of the district and with passage of AB 2701, has a clearly identified project and financial plan. I am committed to having the county of San Luis Obispo complete a wastewater project for those reasons.

The county is not asking for anything from Los Osos, let alone a blank check. It is offering solutions, trust and cost constraints for a completed project. I look forward to the successful completion of a Proposition 218 assessment and implementation of a wastewater project for the homeowners and community of Los Osos.

Joe Sparks

Churadogs said...

Someone posting as Richard Le Gros sez:"PS: We are all waiting for you to stop your personal attacks against other bloggers. They are quite tiresome in light of the real issues facing Los Osos.

10:27 AM, August 10, 2007"

Oh, you mean like calling someone a "silly donkey?" Tiresome stuff like that?

RLG also sez:"So starting the project did not cause the damage to the CSD, it was the ill-conceived attempt to stop it that caused misery to rain down upon Los Osos.

Regards, Richard LeGros"

Here is the saddest comment of all. You couldn't be more wrong. IF you had set the recall election at the earliest possible date, held off on starting the project, I have absoutely no doubt the recall would have failed. (People hate recalls, the fact this one made a ballot tells you how dangerous it was, the fact that Measure B was so narrowly passed indicated how close all this was.)

Then, had by some miracle the recall still gone through, IF the Dreamers and the crazed Briggs had kept their cool, I have absolutely no doubt that the "October compromise" would have gone through, which means pipe laying would have continued (no breach of contract), a plant could have been designed for, say the Giacometti Property, etc. (just as is being considered now) and things would have moved forward. But, no, Pandora wanted the CSDd fined out of existence, Shirley Bianchi was sending litle billet doux to SWB Potter hinting as to how she could take the project away from the CSD, etc, Gordon & Roger were in court side by side on blcoking the Measure B issue, then back he came again with Dissolution & etc. All sort of behind the scenes little fingers in the pie. So many little fingers. . . .

No, it was your and Stan and Gordon's fatal blunder to set that election as late as possible (Gordon's was the tie-breaking vote on that one) and then tell the town F---- You AND the horse you rode in on by pounding SRF money into the ground and cuttting into the TriW site that tipped the balance. It was and remains an amazing political blunder. You three brought down both the town and yourselves and the question that still intrigues me is Why? You claim (falsely) that you HAD to. Wrong. It was a choice and a fateful one and again, the Why is so fascinating to me.

Posters on this site constantly refer to someone called "obstructionists." It's clear to me that that word is fungible and can mean "anyone I disagree with." The majority of this community was ready and willing to compromise: gravity's o.k, but please, put the plant out of town. Simple. Those people were ignored. Again, why?
Something went sooooooo wrong with this project and kept going wrong all the way along and at key points there were opportunities and CHOICES to STOP and change directions slightly, yet that never happened. Again, the WHY is what really intrigues? And your refusal to see your hand in all this is also intriguing.

Hip bone connected to the thigh bone, thigh bone connected . . . . that step by oblivious and/or deliberate misstep into the swamp is what makes this whole thing both so tragic and so hilarious.

Mike said...

Measure B connected to... well nothing, it failed to stand the tests of law, the CSD failed to do anything except fail all who voted in line with the lies.

The District is Bankrupt and the Directors who brought this all down are coming to court. The County will build the sewer and you will simply move on to corrupt some other gullible community.

4crapkiller said...

To Churadogs who states:

"Here is the saddest comment of all. You couldn't be more wrong. IF you had set the recall election at the earliest possible date, held off on starting the project, I have absoutely no doubt the recall would have failed. (People hate recalls, the fact this one made a ballot tells you how dangerous it was, the fact that Measure B was so narrowly passed indicated how close all this was.)"

I disagree completely for the following reasons:

1. The recall passed because of the low turnout of the electorate. Many property owners who normally vote did not. There would have been an even lower turnout had the recall election been held earlier.

2. Those opposing the sewer had many talking points and had been talking their position for a year before the election:
a. a sewer is not needed, there is no proof of pollution.
b. The water board has no teeth, everything they have stated will not happen.
c. CDOs have never been imposed on individuals.
d. We have a cheaper and better plan that will cost $100 a month, rather than $200 a month, if we really need a sewer.
e. The loan can be moved to another site.

While a plethora of people were circulating the recall PETITION, they were passing on this false information. As a result there was a fairly large group of voters who signed the petition. Alon Perleman, Al Barrow, McPherson, and most importantly a person with substantial skill in these matters Joey Racano, were pushing this. All renters! Racano, of course, was pushing for a regional solution out in the hinterlands. Edwards was looking at other possibilities for TRI-W.

"Save the Dream" did not really start until the petition was certified, and started late. They were in a defensive rather than offensive position without activist, highly vocal supporters.

3. Many property owners could not comprehend that a recalled board would be so stupid as to stop the financed and permitted sewer. They expected "due diligence" from their representatives, and felt that they would do their best: After all they were "educated engineers from Caltrans", practical people who one could assume would not be foolish.
This contributed to the low turnout.

4. Had the recall election occurred earlier, it would have been in the smack middle of prime vacation time , which would have even contributed to a lighter turnout.

The whole key to the recall election was not the timing of anything, but the misinformation and outright lies. The lies are really apparent now with 20/20 hindsight along with the misinformation.

And so it is with all elections. Those who lie best and promise everything always win.

"There are a lot more fools than wise men in this town, and we have the fools with us!" Huck Finn.

Richard LeGros said...

Hi Ann,

I BLOGGED EARLIER: "So starting the project did not cause the damage to the CSD, it was the ill-conceived attempt to stop it that caused misery to rain down upon Los Osos."

YOU RESPONDED: "Here is the saddest comment of all. You couldn't be more wrong. IF you had set the recall election at the earliest possible date, held off on starting the project, I have absoutely no doubt the recall would have failed."
AND LATER........
"it was your and Stan and Gordon's fatal blunder to set that election as late as possible (Gordon's was the tie-breaking vote on that one) and then tell the town F---- You AND the horse you rode in on by pounding SRF money into the ground and cuttting into the TriW site that tipped the balance"

MY RESPONSE: Ann, all you wrote is I was recalled because I erred in setting the date for the recall to late; which may be true. If true, then I goofed; and paid for it by being recalled. Additionally, you’re saying that my errs ‘tipped the balance’ to the new board. That is true for after the recall I was not in any decision-making capacity for the CSD as the new board held all the reins of power.

HOWEVER, you are suggesting that because I was recalled that I caused the new board’s mismanagement of the LOCSD. How so? I was not making the decisions; the new board was.
You are also suggesting (by extension), that if I had not been recalled that the current mismanagement would not have occurred? I will agree with that.

YOU WROTE “IF the Dreamers and the crazed Briggs had kept their cool, I have absolutely no doubt that the "October compromise" would have gone through, which means pipe laying would have continued (no breach of contract), a plant could have been designed for, say the Giacometti Property, etc. (just as is being considered now) and things would have moved forward. But, no, Pandora wanted the CSDd fined out of existence, Shirley Bianchi was sending litle billet doux to SWB Potter hinting as to how she could take the project away from the CSD, etc, Gordon & Roger were in court side by side on blocking the Measure B issue, then back he came again with Dissolution & etc. All sort of behind the scenes little fingers in the pie. So many little fingers. . . .”

RESPONSE: Ann, you offer only speculation as to what happened to the ‘October Compromise’.
The simple truth (based upon the documented historical record from the LOCSD) is that during the ‘October compromise’ the SWRCB listened to the CSD’s proposal, the SWRCB decided the CSD proposal was too risky and sent a compromise position. The CSD reviewed the compromise position and replied to the SWRCB with the CSD’s original position. The SWRCB sent a final compromise position (as to how to retain the SRF loan) to the CSD; which the CSD board decided not to accept. End of story.

In order for your speculation to be believable, one must assume that Gordon, Pandora, Briggs, Bianchi, et el have so much political power that they can manipulate State agencies, an assemblymen and the Courts (the SWRCB board & staff, Sam Blakeslee and the judge on Measure B) to do their bidding. Kind of a stretch isn’t it?

But in the end, what killed the compromise was the CSD board itself; which voted in open session to reject the State’s final offer. The fate of the LOCSD was cast then and there.

Regards, Richard LeGros

PS: It has been a many, many months since I last referred to you as my little 'silly donkey'. I guess you do not like the handle. Well, I apologize and I will not address you as a 'silly donkey' again.

Conspiracy Boy said...

SharkInlet:

I appreciate your responding for Richard, and defending him too.

First - Here's what I wrote, try to re-read.
"The (Federal) Bankruptcy judge ruled that the SRF loan was unsecured and the state would have to deal with it. Apparently she didn't fall for your "fees & charges" scam either!"

This was said at the Bankruptcy hearing months ago.

Second - The roads -- what does this assessment cover regarding the roads. Is it just "patch up" work?
Who, the county (?) will ever put roads in Los Osos?

Third - The state should come in and do a project on their own dime. According to Joe's viewpoint today, it's the state's groundwater and bay.

You stated: "... on the issue of whether the State can just waltz in and build something for us and then charge us to use it ... the state does all sorts of special legislation all the time. AB2701 took the project from the LOCSD and gave it to the County, an organization that didn't have a right to do the project until the special legislation. If the State wanted to take the project and give it to the University of California or the Department of Corrections, both groups have the planning staff who could handle this with ease. It would cost a whole bunch more than with the County ... but the State has really really deep pockets and could build it on their own dime (no 218 vote would be required) and then they could charge us monthly fees to recover their construction costs much like happens in other communities when they need sewer upgrades. The only difference here is that our upgrade is much larger than most.

SharkInlet, ours is NOT an upgrade number one. And number two, the 2701 legislation came after the CSD agreed to LAFCO's option "B" - I believe they had to have that before the legislation process started. Option B showed the CSD would work "with" the county on the sewer project. That was blackmail too. "your board will be dissolved if you don't agree to work with the legislation.."

So, if they would have to do legislation for the state to take over, the public would be more aware this time around. Blakeslee kept 2701 wording secret until it was too late to protest, and that can't be allowed to happen again.

Richard LeGros said...

HI CB,

A few comments:

1. I was in the Bankruptcy court audience when you claim judge Ribblet told the State the SRF loan was unsecured. What judge Ribblet said was the SRF loan was SECURED by the LOCSD rate schedule and promise to repay and not by real property. Judge Ribblet did not admonish the State, nor did she infer that the SRF loan security (i.e. the rate schedule) was a ‘scam’.

2. You will have to ask the County their intent on the issue of repaving roadways in Los Osos when installing the WWTP infrastructure. In the Tri-W project, roadways had to be restored to original condition; and in most cases this required the repaving of the entire roadway.

3. You’re correct that the ‘owner’ of the Los Osos aquifer and Morro Bay is the State.

However, it does not follow that as the ‘owner’ that the State must pay for the cleanup of the pollution of the aquifer and Morro Bay that was caused by others. The State, in complying with Federal regulations, have passed laws that mandate that it the POLLUTERS (in this case the citizens in the PZ) of the State’s waters who are responsible to pay for and implement the cleanup of said pollution of the State’s property.

4. YOU WROTE: “Blakeslee kept 2701 wording secret until it was too late to protest, and that can't be allowed to happen again.”

RESPONSE: The wording of AB2701 was not a secret. The wording of AB2701 was posted 24/7 on the State Legislature web page. As AB2701 was modified, the web page was continuously updated to reflect the wording changes. The process to enact AB2701 lasted over a period of 3 months; which is amble time to read and analysis the bills wording.

I would like to see your evidence that supports your claim that the State conducted a fraud in the processing of AB2701.

Regards, Richard LeGros

Shark Inlet said...

CB,

I was not responding for Richard or defending him. I was calling you out for your inaccurate statements.

You claimed a judge had determine that the SRF was not legal because a 218 vote was necessary. This appears not to be the case.

You also implied that the TriW plan was going to repair roadwork ... more than necessary. Now you seem to back off that claim.

Your response on the third point I raised ... that the State could, through special legislation, screw us royally if we don't choose to go with the County plan ... your response is entirely off topic. You originally claimed that there was no one in the state who could do the job. I said there was. Your response was to discuss LAFCO and public awareness.

However, I might be misunderstanding your point. Perhaps if you clarify your responses it would make it clear whether you've got some solid points or not.

Betty said...

If the Prop 218 vote fails, I can easily envision special legislation giving the RWQCB the power to fine us in an amount sufficient to fund DWR to build the sewer. I can also envision DWR contracting with the County to do the job.

Under this scenario, we have absolutely no say in anything.

Conspiracy Boy said...

Richard LeGros:

It was Chuck who said that the judge declared the loan was unsecured at the last BOS meeting I believe. I was not in bankruptcy court. I'll try to get a transcript to find out the truth. You say one thing, Chuck says another.

It was my take that the fees & charges were a scam, here's what I wrote (blogged):

"Apparently she (the judge) didn't fall for your "fees & charges" scam either!" since there was no sewer to have fees & charges for.

So, Richard, you twisted what I said for your purposes...

Paavo has stated in the past that the CSD and/or county has to do a 218 vote.

As far as AB2701, I know it appeared on the website, but WHEN?? What was that date? I know that this community didn't know about any of the wording (or the website) until it was ready to go before Local Government Committee. I know of a few people who talked to the consultants for the committees in Sacramento and they informed that the process had gone too far to protest, in other words, we missed our period to do anything about it.

You said, "would like to see your evidence that supports your claim that the State conducted a fraud in the processing of AB2701."

Richard, you claim that I said "fraud" regarding AB2701. I didn't.
YOU DID. Again, you twist for your own purpose. You sound like CrapKiller to me!

As far as the PZ, now that's the biggest scam of all.

There are PZ homes just feet away from homes not in the PZ and you can not tell me one is polluting and one is not. The state and federal government should help pay to clean the groundwater and bay. The cost should not be imposed exclusively on just a portion of the community. It's absurd for just a portion of town to pay for sea water intrusion, the water basin, the bay, etc. (Besides, I hear that the RWQCB guy who drew that phoney line around town later moved to Cabrillo.) I don't feel that there was any real science or real independent tests to define the PZ line. If you would have done your duty as a director you would have corrected that error. The PZ could have been expanded (if anything) and should have been, but you did nothing for the people.

Hey, you pollute up there Richard. I saw a show rather recently on sewers on the History channel. Pollution runs down hill, right? That's what they implied when they built in France long ago.

As far as the roads, what about the roads that aren't paved now? Will the PZ pay for roads that weren't there before? Will those dirt roads be paved after the construction or go back to the original (dirt) state? And when will the county ever do roads and curbs here. They've done nothing for 20 years!

Mike said...

Conspiracy Boy, you are absolutely right, Harry S. Truman should never have started WWII and brought all those troops to the Central Coast. He's the one who required the creation of 25 ft wide lots which allowed too much population density in Los Osos. He should be impeached and thrown out of office!

By Damn, we finally have gotten to the bottom of the responsibility chain! It is the President of the US of A who is personally responsible for our dirt streets and too many septic tanks! Congratulations, you win, now go build your sewer or don't build it, the community is finally fed up, go do what ever the hell makes you happy! You win!

Richard LeGros said...

CB,

YOU WROTE: “It was my take that the fees & charges were a scam, here's what I wrote (blogged):

"Apparently she (the judge) didn't fall for your "fees & charges" scam either!" since there was no sewer to have fees & charges for.

So, Richard, you twisted what I said for your purposes... It was my take that the fees & charges were a scam, here's what I wrote (blogged):

"Apparently she (the judge) didn't fall for your "fees & charges" scam either!" since there was no sewer to have fees & charges for.

So, Richard, you twisted what I said for your purposes...”

IN AN EARLIER BLOG YOU WROTE: “"The (Federal) Bankruptcy judge ruled that the SRF loan was unsecured and the state would have to deal with it. Apparently she didn't fall for your "fees & charges" scam either!"

RESPONSE: You wrote that Judge Ribblet found the SRF loan as unsecured (which she did not say), and by your wording of a previous blog made it sound like she also said that securing the loan by the rate schedule to be a ‘scam’. In reality she did not say that for YOU added you own thoughts about the loan security (that it was a ‘scam’) and made it look judge Ribblet said that too.

In short, you blogged that Judge Ribblet said things that she did not say….rather you ‘embellished’ what actually happened by putting words into the mouth of Judge Ribblet. (Incidentally, you just performed a classic form of ‘twisting’ by changing the message by word manipulation.)

Also, the use of rate schedules to secure SRF loans has been used for years; and is a time-tested and legal method.

YOU WROTE: " Richard, you claim that I said "fraud" regarding AB2701. I didn't.
YOU DID. Again, you twist for your own purpose. You sound like CrapKiller to me!"

IN AN EARLIER BLOG YOU WROTE: "Blakeslee kept 2701 wording secret until it was too late to protest, and that can't be allowed to happen again.

RESPONSE: Yup, you didn’t use the word 'fraud', but you definitely implied it with your disparaging remarks about Assemblyman Blakeslee. Meanwhile, my question still stands...."I would like to see your evidence that supports your claim that the State conducted a fraud in the processing of AB2701.

Lastly, please talk to the RWQCB if you have a problem with the area defined as the PZ. But before you go, remember that in 1995 CAWS sued the RWQCB on the very issues you are complaining about. CAWS used almost identical arguments to discredit the RWQCB as you just blogged. And you know what happened….. CAWS lost, and in doing so the courts adjudicated (read legally set in law) the PZ boundaries as reasonable; and further ruled that the setting of said boundaries was completely within the regulatory powers of the RWQCB.

Regards, Richard LeGros

Conspiracy Boy said...

SharkInlet:

You misunderstand on purpose. You say, "You originally claimed that there was no one in the state who could do the job. I said there was. Your response was to discuss LAFCO and public awareness..."

What??!! No, SharkInlet, I've been asking who in the state or what branch of the state government could come in and do it. Also, I was stating what Sam did before the legislation regarding the CSD signing to work with the county (LAFCO.)

You said that legislation is needed to "take-over", right? I'd say that is different from threathing that the state can just come in and take over-- that's my opinion.

I am confused about the roads and thought the, what, $6 million was to repave, not a patch-up job. And I still can't understand why the county hasn't paved our roads in 20 years. We've certainly paid enough property tax money ...Is the county going to finally pave our streets for us after a WWTP is in??? Can I get an answer?

Conspiracy Boy said...

Richard,

Again, I said, "Apparently she didn't fall for your "fees & charges" scam either!"

I said apparently...what don't you understand about that? Can you read?

No, Richard, you can't read or didn't comprehend or just like to twist the wording. Whatever. Sounds like you're interpreting to benefit yourself and to distract from what I am saying and the real issues.

And I said before, Chuck said the judge said the loan was unsecured and the state had to deal with it, you say something else. Who do we believe? I think Chuck, since you lie like a dog.

P.S. You're sounding more and more like insane Mike/CrapKiller!

P.S.S the CAWS case was in the court before Prop 218 became law in '96. Hmmmm...very interesting....!

Mike said...

Not insane CB, just tired of your lies and attempts to discredit everyone and every government entity you don't care for. You deliberately lie! You spin every thought into a conspiracy and you have yet to write anything which could be backed up with facts. We put up and strung you along over your big pipes crap, then there was you trying to tell the world that all the pipes would be 28 feet in the ground and you have some unknown sewer expert who agrees. Bull crap! You don't have a clue what Richard, Shark and CrapKiller have been discussing. You sound like another Och with zero basis of fact, yet you shoot your mouth off to all who you think are listening. You have no idea how many people have turned their backs and walked away from your know-it-all remarks around town! Good luck living with yourself in that conspiracy hole you continue to dug!

Even Ann has tried to tell you to back off and maybe you might learn something.

Shark Inlet said...

CB,

Are you saying that you believe there is someone in the State government who can swoop into Los Osos and build a sewer? It was just a day or so ago that you were telling us that only DWP could do that and that you called DWP and they told you they don't do sewers. Which is it ... are you telling us that no one in the State can do it, that someone in the state can do it or that you don't know and you are curious about the matter? Or are you asking about LAFCO or AB2701.

Perhaps if you clarify your question we could answer the one you really have. Having me and others keep answering questions that you don't mean to ask is sort of inefficient.

On the matter of the state taking over, I don't know that anyone in particular threatened that this would happen ... but you seem to think that it cannot and others here seem to think that it can. You've not demonstrated that it cannot happen and others have explained that it can. What, exactly, is your question again?


About repaving ... Richard explained quite well what that was all about ... but it sounds as if you have a question for the County rather than for me. The only reason I jumped in is that the way you had originally phrased yourself it sounded as if you were accusing the earlier LOCSD board of making the PZ folks pay for repair work for the entire town ... which is definitely not the case.


As for whether folks are trying to twist your words ... I can assure you that it is not an attempt to twist what you are saying but instead an attempt to understand just what the heck you are trying to say. Perhaps the issue here is that much of your rhetoric is a bit over the top and a bit accusatory in tone. Maybe you don't realize this ...

Conspiracy Boy said...

Mike:

Yes, insane!

Why don't you dare to tell me where I've lied.

You people have to lie to sell your mega sewer that a town of this size doesn't need!

It was YOUR pro/con that said up to 28 feet. The one expert I recently quoted said 20 feet and she does this work for a living. Richard said some would be 28 feet too (even if it is a small percentage.) So, where's the lie? You are just an idiot I guess.

You just want to discredit me because I (and many others) know exactly what's going on, and has been since the recall passed (and who all was involved -- who all the players are.)

You say, "yet you shoot your mouth off to all who you think are listening. You have no idea how many people have turned their backs and walked away from your know-it-all remarks around town!"

What the hell are you talking about? Around town? I blog. There are very few on this blog, just a couple dreamers who jumped from the Trib site over to Ann's to ruin hers and try to influence the vote.

You are insane. So is Richard. You live in a fantasy world and try to discredit just to distract from the facts and the truth.

P.S. And I don't remember Ann saying that at all. Maybe she can correct me if I'm wrong. Do you speak for Ann now too?

P.S.S. Go have another drink, you need one.

Conspiracy Boy said...

SharkInlet:

Well, isn't this funny! You are all ganging up to twist what I've asked and have said. A little distraction here?

Have I hit a nerve? Sure looks like I did.

I hate to repeat, but I guess I have to since you've distorted everything.

I asked over and over who or what arm of the state could take over like you all have threatened. Hey, I even asked Mr. Know-it-All LeGros, and he told me to go research. You make the threats, but can't back it up or answer the question!?

Then some have said legislation would have to be done, and I say that it won't be so easy to do that this time! Not everybody is happy with AB2701 and the way it was done.

I've been told by someone working close with the county (process) and was told "no" the state can't do that, but if anyone could it would only be DWR. I talked to someone who works there, and they said they couldn't do it because they only do dams.

So what is your problem Mr. Inlet?

I wasn't the one who said the state could come in and just do it. It was your people and you know it. Have you gone wacko?

What are you drinking tonight?

You said, "On the matter of the state taking over, I don't know that anyone in particular threatened that this would happen ... "

You know darn well Crapkiller has said this. You know that Rodger Anderson said it. Besides, you read these blogs. Are you lying now too? Or just acting stupid? Which is it?

Richard LeGros said...

CB (Bruce),

Shark inlet, Mike and I are not trying to 'gang up' on you, confuse you or twist our words. We are just trying to understand your arguments.

Please understand that your points of debate change from one blog to the next; sometimes even contradict one another. To top it all off, when you become uncomfortable with our questions or comments about your blog, you resort to vile personal attacks.

To date though, it appears that your points of debate are all based upon:

HEARSAY: Blogging that 'Chuck said this', or 'somebody in the county said that', and then concluding that their comments makes your comments true, is a weak basis for an argument....let alone convince readers that you are correct. You need verifiable facts and a rational construct to connect said facts in order to convince.

CONSPIRACY THEORIES: You have a propensity to take incomplete information and construct elaborate theories of how other people are behaving, all without any method of validating what you say. Saying this or that happened because you feel a whole group of people ganged up and manipulated data and events (offering no reason other than ‘you know it is true’ to reach a certain goal you find nefarious is a losing argument.

CB, I know you are passionate about what you say, but you do not convince.

Regards, Richard LeGros

Shark Inlet said...

What was I drinking? I had a glass of BV Cab that I had bought at Vons earlier in the week.

But that seems sort of beside the point.

Okay, now that you've rephrased your questions and comments I think I understand better what you're asking.


Summary: Some (me included) think the state could, thru special legislation, take the project over themselves if the 218 vote fails and others (you included) aren't sure that this could happen.


What troubles me most here is that you want the right to speculate as much as you want ("Orenco will save us $100M") and don't want to provide the facts behind your speculation ("go and ask the County yourself, I don't have the numbers") but you get get really indignant when the tables are turned ("the State could come in and take over and it would probably be even worse than working with the County" and "why don't you ask the state yourself?"). Seems sort of ungracious to me ... holding others to a higher standard than you hold yourself. Perhaps this was not your intent ... I hope not ...

4crapkiller said...

To CB:

At the LAFCO meeting at the very end, Kacho said that if the Blakeslee bill process did not work, and the county was not allowed to do the job, the state would come in and do it and assess everyone for the costs, and it would be much more expensive.

Who to believe? Certainly not you.

Read the fine screening report yet? I have. Looks like they did a very good job. How to make a choice? It sort of seems that we should go with the big bucks: Gravity, oxidation ditch outside of town with full tertiary + treatment by MBR to almost potable water in addition (oxidation ditch takes care of most sludge and NITRATE) and use Brodeson and TRI-W with fish ponds and great landscaping for recharge.

There is no reason why we can't do a combination of the systems and sites. It's only money.

Those who can't afford this are up the creek anyway. In any case, the value of our real estate will grow way above the costs, and we will not need state water if we treat our upper aquifer water at the well head for nitrates.

Financing? State low interest loan for 50 years. Borrow the money now and pay it off with cheaper money in the future. Besides, most of us will be dead. It is the American socialistic way!

Big plastic septic tanks, with no place to put them, with extra electrical for pumps and monitoring equipment? Pumping every five years? Forget about it!

Water is the problem. I have the feeling that the system that the county chooses will produce the best effluent for aquifer recharge.

Churadogs said...

To all fence fighters. The TAC report is out, will be discussed this afternoon at the BOS. Last night, at the TAC meeting's brief presentation, the numbers presented were clear: No matter what combination was tried, even with worse/best case scenarios, even with hyper-inflpated contingency add-ons & etc, Tri W came in dead last, i.e. more expensive. So, the questions this community has to ask itself are these: WHY? And WHAT REALLY HAPPENED HERE? and HOW COULD IT HAVE HAPPENED? and WHERE WERE THE REGULATORS, THE PLANNERS,THE COMMISSIONS, THE OVERSIGHTERS, THE WOA, I SMELL A BAIT AND SWITCHY RAT HERE CHECK & BALANCE BOYS? and HOW CAN WE PREVENT IT FROM HAPPENING AGAIN?

Ron Crawford's already started The Narrative, says he's writing a book. Bound to be a doozie. Now the TAC report. Soon value engineering and maybe competitive RFP bidding games. It's going to be a hell of a story by the time it's done, that's for sure.

But there they are, those awful, awful questions.

Sewertoons said...

Ann says regarding Tri-W:
"HOW CAN WE PREVENT IT FROM HAPPENING AGAIN?"

Guess YOU haven't been attending enough TAC meetings, Ann. It IS all out in the open. "IT" is NOT happening. We can SEE and SPEAK TO every single blinkin' thing that comes up at the meetings. All we have to do is attend (or at least watch it on Channel 20).