Pages

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Sewer Viewpoint



The following appeared in the Feb 24, 09, Tribune. This is the Viewpoint with a few added notes by author McPherson.



Regarding Bill Garfinkel's Viewpoint, "It's time to speak out on sewer options" (Feb. 17):
All residents of Los Osos should have received a community survey in the mail from the county by now. It is important that every resident of LosOsos return this survey.



Apart from which system you might prefer, please let the county processwork. Paavo Ogren, County Public Works director, wisely proclaimed that ifneither side is allowed to hijack the Los Osos project, the county processwill result in a new Los Osos project that the community can embrace, evenif parts are not what each individual envisioned or advocated. Mr. Garfinkelseeks to short circuit the county process by eliminating options.


In accordance with the special legislation AB2701, the process developed bythe county has worked diligently to identify several viable options for theLos Osos wastewater project. The detailed project reports and permitdocuments put forth a co-equal analysis which will lead to competitivepricing and lower costs to the consumer/community. The county-managedwastewater project is now entering into the competitive design-build processto assure that a project is selected based on best value, not on amateurishopinions or scare tactics to eliminate options.


As pointed out in Mr. Garfinkel¹s Viewpoint, the most costly piece of theproject is the collection system, and two types of systems are proposed.Eighty million dollars is budgeted for whichever is selected as the bestvalue for the community. Estimates to date indicate gravity must beredesigned water tight, will save money if redirected out of town, and willcost more to install. STEP will cost less. This is quitethreatening to original Tri-W contractors, and will surely drive competitivepricing lower for either system selected.



I am not advocating either, and regardless of your position on the type ofcollection system, making the options compete head-to-head is what will giveLos Osos the real-world costs for an informed decision. So why narrowchoices now?



The county has focused on two strategies to lower the cost of the project:1) financing; The county has negotiated 30-year, 0 percent financing. The stimulus package has two significant features that concerns Los Osos; Provisions to forgive old debt for disadvantaged communities, and incentives for green projects to be funded above others.2)



Competitive pricing: To assure against price slip that killed the last project, the county is processing the design-build as a fixed price guarantee in the competitive proposals.Unfortunately, hijacking the competitive process byeliminating options is exactly what the Viewpoint is seeking to accomplish.



The group of original veteran obstructionists (Solutions group and nowcalled Taxpayers Watch) has used Garfinkel to violate all trust and decencytoward the county process (and community preferences’) to shamelessly lobby for just one choice---the gravity collection option. This effort to bypass the AB 2701 county community survey before it was in the mail stinks!



Isn't it enough they screwed up the Tri-W project with an amateur CommunityServices District and gobs of similar misinformation? That the project coststripled while they simply forgot a 218 assessment vote? Breaking ground on a rejected project bankrupted the district and shattered the community.



The Viewpoint seeks to achieve a noncompetitive sole source deal for the rejected collection design. Don't allow any group to defeat the countyprocess by eliminating options.



Let's stay the course and complete the Blakeslee AB 2701 vetting process, with full construction and lifecycle cost guarantees for both the STEP and gravity options. If one system costs substantially less and does the job, let the community decide if they want to choose it.



Please write in on your survey: "Dear supervisors: I want both systems (STEPvs. gravity) included in competitive proposals with a guaranteed maximumprice, including full life cycle operation and maintenance costs for bothcollection systems."Or e-mail the important message to the Board of Supervisors at:www.slocounty.ca.gov/bos/BOSContactUs.htm



Gail McPherson is a retired wastewater systems manager and serves asexecutive director of Citizens for Clean Water.

P.S. These two statements in Garfinkel’s piece absolutely misrepresent the County position and the facts:
1. “The “better solutions” have either not been tested in similar environments, been deemed highly unlikely to pass approval by governing agencies or been dismissed as too costly.”
“The options from the County process are ALL VIABLE—this finding is based on the alternatives track record, cost and community acceptability.” (Co. report)
2.”Those who claim it is not “green” enough are ignoring the large additional costs associated with developing alternate energy to drive the plant or treat solid wastes to higher levels.”
The TW obstructionists wrongly assumes Environmental 'Green' technology will cost more, In fact the County & industry reports indicate that project with "minimal environmental impacts" actually can lower costs in the construction phase and over the life of the project. Reserve for Green, Efficient, Innovative Projects: That, to the extent there are sufficient eligible project applications, not less than 20 percent of the funds appropriated herein for the Revolving Funds shall be for projects to address green infrastructure, water or energy efficiency improvements or other environmentally innovative activities” (SRF briefing doc)
Last, Green has lots of definitions, but it is a real stretch to call the collection system that flows by gravity “green.” Gravity flows down hill like the STEG until the hill stops. Then a lift station is required to pump it. Los Osos is hilly—at least 12 stations and pumps and back up power for each---hello? Disposal is up hill too!
I know either collection system if properly designed, constructed, and operated will work. NOW it is about preferences, but more IT IS ABOUT THE PRICE. Don’t you at least want to find out? Blakeslee thought we should, and so did the County, even with Puppet Bill Garfinkel as TAC Chair pulling strings.

54 comments:

Billy Dunne said...

Is it me or is there something wacky about Ann Calhoun. She writes the following:

"Unfortunately, Bill’s piece is only the first salvo in the upcoming “campaign” to subtly (and not so subtly) influence which collection system the authors wish the community to “buy” in this upcoming "survey." Get ready for more campaigning – coordinated letters to the editor touting gravity or STEP, other viewpoints pretending to neutrality that are nonetheless loaded down with “spin” of one sort or the other."

But then proceeds to print on her blog two such pieces, one from the "Sustainability Group," whatever and whoever the hell that is, and another from her friend, bitter shrew Gail McPherson, who most people in Los Osos gleefully, and mistakenly I guess, thought left town for good. (I also note Bill's "piece" was not posted here, and only referenced with a link by Crawford.)

Soooooooo...if it's "unfortunate" these peices are being written, why post them on this blog Annie?

Billy Dunne said...

....or....and I'm guessing this is probably the best answwer, it's only "unfortunate" when someone writes something that doesn't agree with your viewpoint, correct?

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

Good Morning Billy... You are correct as usual, but then Ann has never pretended to be neutral...she has always been against any sewer, any where in the Los Osos Valley... Her "Ponds of Avalon" dream was simply a ruse to deflect her true feelings... She still believes the "magic sands" of Los Osos are waste treatment enough...!!!!

And as for Ms.McPherson, well most of us see her for what she is... (BTW, when will PZLDF ever PAY their agreed portion of their failed lawsuit?)

As the laughable comment "...even with Puppet Bill Garfinkel as TAC Chair pulling strings.", was that written by Ann or Lisa's Puppet Mistress, Gail....?????

Bottom line remains; Los Osos is getting a sewer and with a bit of help from Bruce Gibson and his meetings in Washington this week, we may see the "shovel ready" Tri-W site and system soon restarted...!!!!!

Watershed Mark said...

The opinion writers at the Tribune opine: In accordance with the special legislation AB2701, the process developed bythe county has worked diligently to identify several viable options for theLos Osos wastewater project.

"while seemingly ignoring technology that would conserve time, money and energy."

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

Will someone please explain the "keep all options open" concept to the 10 or so regulars at the Bd. of Supervispors meetings? They have subjected us to weekly rants about their perceived superiority of Step over gravity, with no comments from Ann or anyone else about their inappropriate and untimely bleating.Let's all respect the process.

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

All options must be kept open ... except for TriW ... and gravity ... and things that are expensive ... and things that include parks ... and things that keep the aquifer recharged ...

Realistic1 said...

And any other options that Gail, or Ann, or Ron don't like...

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

I'm going to be posting an analysis of Gail McPherson's viewpoint later today. I'll share some of my opinion to this:

Gail is someone who cannot deliver a clear, bold message. She likens herself as this person who is above the fray, taking the higher road even though her behavior -- as documented from her days in Riverside and the way she has treated Los Osos residents -- shows ill intent. Every single consequent of her actions has resulted in failure if not a success in stalling progress where it matters the most.

At the same time, I don't feel that attacking Ann's character gets to the root of the problem; the problem is Gail McPherson, not Ann.

Richard, if you're going to "Mau Mau" the conversation with insults, be prepared to take some heat. I'm no longer in the insulting business so you're not going to get flak from me, but it's just a heads up.

On my blog, you wrote on February 12th, "... as you are tired of being mislead, could it be partly a failure to hear information that needs be explained?"

My response to you was, in a nutshell, I will be willing to listen to you if you will be willing to listen to me. I should have added that you need to keep an open mind about things and listen to people. When you throw around insults, I have a harder time listening to your points and

I can safely say that you were recalled because you exhibited this sort of behavior to people and the community was fed up with it. If they saw how you behaved on here, their opinion of you would not change.

Sewertoons said...

Aaron says:
"I can safely say that you were recalled because you exhibited this sort of behavior to people and the community was fed up with it."

I disagree, I think he was recalled because Gail orchestrated a pack of lies. The lies of "$100/out of town, vote out the people who won't let you have that" was far more powerful.

Mike said...

ABSOLUTELY...!!!!!

The truly digusting behaviour of the small group who were influenced by Gail and cheered on by Ann is still heavy on thios community... I really don't blame Richard if he is bitter...!!! He and the other Directors were insulted, threatened, lied to and about... Go look at the behaviour of Lisa and Julie as prime examples of how to destroy any semblance of a local government... They never gave a damn about "process" and much less about technology or location...!!!!

Sorry Aaron, but you should review the 2 years before the recall...!!!! And now look at those same folks parading before every BOS meeting... Those individuals will not ever accept any sewer in Los Osos..!!!!

Now they want us to be civil...??? How about an apology from those who led that disgusting attack on this community....??? Ann??? Gail??? Lisa??? Julie??? Bo???? Al??? Chuck???

Richard LeGros said...

Aaron,

I welcome your thoughts to Ann's blog.

Please realize that, at the heart of this matter, is the fact that the constant misdirection by Ann, Gail, etal, as they play the process, is nothing more than nonsensical blather. Their true motive is to prevent any resolution at all.

Having been in the process for years, I have tried calm discussion, logic, review of the law, pleading...all to no avail.
The only thing left to hold Ann, Gail, etal accountable and answerable for their behavior. At this time I have no problem at calling a spade a spade; with pleasantries now not required.

As for wanting to discuss matters with me, I welcome you to come to my home for a chat. I do not bite, but I will be forthright. You may reach me at 528-6594 to set a time to meet.

I must take umbrage over your chastisement of my blogging behavior; and have to question the tone of your post. You will recall when I was on the Board; you delivered several mean-spirited speeches to the then-board.

For example:

Remember mau-mauing Stan G, dishing up that he had been 'Dishonorably Discharged'; which is a particularly deep insult to an honorable ex-Marine such as Stan?

Do you remember your scathing insults thrown at the board as to our personal characters and motivations?

Before chastising others, take the time to review the tapes of your presentation.....you will not like what you see; and might want to consider changing your style if you are no longer in the insult business.

-R

Aaron said...

Richard,

You have the absolute right to call me out on my "dishonorably discharged" comment to Stan and you have every right to call me out on some of the things I said prior to the recall. I hold myself entirely accountable for those words. As such, I am no longer in the insult business.

I've personally spoken to people like Maria and Lynette and I've told them that I've been actively trying to purge the venom and the spite that I had for so long. As I got older, I realized that I could communicate without the need to dramatize my point in the form of insults and character assassinations.

Barack Obama set a standard in our country for accountability. We all need to hold ourselves accountable for what we have do, what we do and what we will continue to do. I've fully embraced the change that he wants to deliver to the country.

However, what I have said and done back in 2005 does not negate my argument now in 2009 when I say that your current blogging behavior is unacceptable. If you want to make a point, go for it. You don't have to insult Ann to carry your message.

I've learned from my mistakes. I hope that one day you can learn from yours.

I'm usually available. My e-mail address is aaron@rockofthecoast.com. I'll be more than happy to meet with you when we're not under crossfire.

Watershed Mark said...

From: Mark Low [mailto:Mark@NOwastewater.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 3:42 PM
To: mhutchinson@co.slo.ca.us
Cc: John Waddell; pogren@co.slo.ca.us; mark@nowastewater.com
Subject: Veiwpoint Sentence

Hello Mark,

After reading the recent Tribune Viewpoint here: http://calhounscannon.blogspot.com/
I have a few questions I trust you or your staff can answer.

-“The county-managed wastewater project is now entering into the competitive design-build process to assure that a project is selected based on best value, not on amateurish opinions or scare tactics to eliminate options.”

Do you have any written criteria for “best value” currently in place? If not, why not? If so, would you please post it to your website or send me a copy.

-“Estimates to date indicate gravity must be redesigned water tight, will save money if redirected out of town, and will cost more to install.

I have broken this sentence down in an attempt to decode what it actually means:

-“Estimates to date indicate gravity must be redesigned water tight,”

This assumes that what made it to the RFQ and DEIR isn’t “accurate or complete” and then begs the questions:

Who made these “estimates?”
What are these estimates based on? What are the “estimates?”
When were these estimates made?
How were these estimates made and based on what information? Was it old information or something new?
Why were these estimates that no one knows about except the Tribune’s editorial staff?
Why aren’t these estimates available for public scrutiny?

Triangulation from the county to the public via the Tribune’s editorial staff does seem like a best value or best use of information, especially when opinions offered raise more questions than the issues addressed.

The estimates should be made part o the county process and record via Revised DEIR and RFQ.

- “will save money if redirected out of town,”

Will save money over what?

-“and will cost more to install.”

Cost more to install than what?

The sentence fragment indicates that gravity could be more costly to install than small diameter directional bore drill pipe or welded pipe is more costly that what was carried forward in the DEIR and RFQ. Which is it or is there something else?

Who told the Tribune editorial board that $80 Million Dollars will pay to install 43 miles of (newly estimated) welded gravity and 19 lift/pump stations?
I am not aware of any TAC Memos that dealt with welded gravity.

Did I miss that one?

Please provide all the information you think is relevant which may be helpful to understanding what the viewpoint sentence actually means.

If the county is making new estimates does that mean that ECOfluid’s USBF™ Tertiary Treatment Design is being “evaluated”?

I will appreciate you prompt response especially about ECOfluid.
I am looking forward to your reply regarding the Water Board Waiver you may or may not have

Mark

Mark Low
602.740.7975 voice
480.464.0405 facsimile
Mark@NOwastewater.com
P.O. Box 1355 Mesa, Arizona 85211
Spero Meliora "I aspire to greater things"

Watershed Mark said...

From: Mark Low [mailto:Mark@NOwastewater.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 5:58 PM
To: mhutchinson@co.slo.ca.us
Cc: John Waddell; pogren@co.slo.ca.us; mark@nowastewater.com
Subject: Viewpoint Sentence _Revised Copy
Importance: High

Hi Mark,

Please forgive me for sending you this revised copy that had one important word missing from my earlier letter to you.
The word “NOT” was omitted in my first draft because I was in a hurry to get to an afternoon Ash Wednesday Mass, which is no excuse at all.

It is amazing how the omission of a single word or piece of information can so drastically change the “meaning” of something important.
The use of the words “water tight” is very important “if” they are intended to be applied to a gravity collection system in the county’s process, after the DEIR was published and public comment period ended.

If a water tight gravity technology is being added now and is being considered it most certainly should have been included in your study process and brought forward as part of the RFQ and DEIR in order to preserve the “co-equal” integrity of your process. Is there some reason why it wasn’t?

Please use this revised copy in place of the one I sent earlier today when preparing your responses.
I know you are busy and so your attention in this matter is greatly appreciated!

Should the county officially decide to accept the septic tank discharge problem and move forward with a “system” your actions would have a profound effect on many people’s lives.
I will pray that you find the necessary strength, wisdom and common sense to perform you fiduciary duty with utmost care and fidelity.

Pax Christi and May God Bless you and yours,

Mark

Hello Mark,

After reading the recent Tribune Viewpoint here: http://calhounscannon.blogspot.com/
I have a few questions I trust you or your staff can answer.

-“The county-managed wastewater project is now entering into the competitive design-build process to assure that a project is selected based on best value, not on amateurish opinions or scare tactics to eliminate options.”

Do you have any written criteria for “best value” currently in place? If not, why not? If so, would you please post it to your website or send me a copy.

-“Estimates to date indicate gravity must be redesigned water tight, will save money if redirected out of town, and will cost more to install.

I have broken this sentence down in an attempt to decode what it actually means:

-“Estimates to date indicate gravity must be redesigned water tight,”

This assumes that what made it to the RFQ and DEIR isn’t “accurate or complete” and then begs the questions:

Who made these “estimates?”
What are these estimates based on? What are the “estimates?”
When were these estimates made?
How were these estimates made and based on what information? Was it old information or something new?
Why were these estimates that no one knows about except the Tribune’s editorial staff?
Why aren’t these estimates available for public scrutiny?

Triangulation from the county to the public via the Tribune’s editorial staff does “NOT” seem like a best value or best use of information, especially when opinions offered raise more questions than the issues addressed.

The estimates should be made part o the county process and record via Revised DEIR and RFQ.

- “will save money if redirected out of town,”

Will save money over what?

-“and will cost more to install.”

Cost more to install than what?

The sentence fragment indicates that gravity could be more costly to install than small diameter directional bore drill pipe or welded pipe is more costly that what was carried forward in the DEIR and RFQ. Which is it or is there something else?

Who told the Tribune editorial board that $80 Million Dollars will pay to install 43 miles of (newly estimated) welded gravity and 19 lift/pump stations?
I am not aware of any TAC Memos that dealt with welded gravity.

Did I miss that one?

Please provide all the information you think is relevant which may be helpful to understanding what the viewpoint sentence actually means.

If the county is making new estimates does that mean that ECOfluid’s USBF™ Tertiary Treatment Design is being “evaluated”?

I will appreciate you prompt response especially about ECOfluid.
I am looking forward to your reply regarding the Water Board Waiver you may or may not have.

Mark

Mark Low
602.740.7975 voice
480.464.0405 facsimile
Mark@NOwastewater.com
P.O. Box 1355 Mesa, Arizona 85211
Spero Meliora "I aspire to greater things"

Watershed Mark said...

Lynette,

A $50 Million Dollar collection and treatment scenario is totally possible.

Read AIRVAC's DEIR Comments here: http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Assets/PW/LOWWP/EIR+Comments+P/DEIR+Airvac+01.30.09.pdf
ECOfluid's tertiary treatment generic proposal that is on the table, serves very well as a guideline to any engineer using common sense while looking for effective and energy efficient wastewater treatment technology.

Taken together these proven and real world technologies effectively and efficiently end the discharges in LO/BP for far less money than anything the county has studied and brought forward.

It appears that the “How can a leaky gravity collection system be permitted in the PZ?” question is being answered.
The answer appears to be “it can’t” or “it’s not”.

Lynette,
Define "big money"-

Sewertoons said...

I really resent Gail calling Bill, "puppet." Like she has ANY credibility left in this community with her $100-$154/out of town fiasco and the PZLFlop lawsuit. She needs to do a reality check.

Watershed Mark said...

Lynette,

A $50 Million Dollar collection and treatment scenario is totally practicable.

Watershed Mark said...

Principal amount: $50,000,000.00
Payment amount: $482,510.82
Interest rate: 10.000%
Interest compounding: Monthly
Total payments: $115,802,598.75
Total interest: $65,802,598.75

http://tcalc.com/tvwww.dll?CalcLoan

Watershed Mark said...

A very good return on investment don't you think?

Watershed Mark said...

Principal amount: $50,000,000.00
Payment amount: $387,649.47
Interest rate: 7.000%
Interest compounding: Monthly
Total payments: $93,035,871.72
Total interest: $43,035,871.72

Principal amount: $50,000,000.00
Payment amount: $332,651.25
Interest rate: 7.000%
Interest compounding: Monthly
Total payments: $119,754,447.01
Total interest: $69,754,447.01

I believe there are matching funds available and would be happy to discuss it when you are ready...

You have my contact information.

Watershed Mark said...

The terms above were 240, 240 and 360 months respectively.

Watershed Mark said...

Principal amount: $100,000,000.00
Payment amount: $277,777.78
Interest rate: 0.000%
Interest compounding: Monthly
Total payments: $100,000,000.00
Total interest: $0.00

360 months "interest free SRF" money.
You can do the math as the cost of the project increases given these are the true figures.

The technology the county brought forward in its DEIR uses 600, 900, and 1.1M kWh/year while ECOfluid uses 454 kWh/year

Churadogs said...

Billy Dunne sez:"....or....and I'm guessing this is probably the best answwer, it's only "unfortunate" when someone writes something that doesn't agree with your viewpoint, correct?"

If Mr. Garfinkle had sent me a copy of his Viewpoint, I'd have posted it. Also suggest you read today's follow up posting and my comment regarding Bill's Viewpoint, that may clarify my "problem" with Mr. Garfinkle's viewpoing.

richard Le Gros sez:"You know….just like you, Ann!"

O.K. Who's posing as Richard on this blog? The REAL Richard left days ago in a Drama Queen hiss of "I'm leaving this blogsite FOREVER," then 24 hours somebody calling himself Richard returns, then next day, there he is again, and again, today, each time ramping up into hissing hysteria and name calling. Since we all know Richard isn't a liar, somebody must be pretending to be him. And this guy's ranting, calling people names, making stuff up, in short, throwing an absolute hissy fit. That can't possibly be the "real" Richard, so whoever this imposter is, knock it off or I'll have to start dumping your posts, since you're posing as somebody else and making all kinds of reckless crazy, statements. Fair warning, whoever you are, it's dump time.

Mike sez:"she has always been against any sewer, any where in the Los Osos Valley..."

Sorry, Mike, wrong again. Like the person pretending to be Richard, you're making stuff up again.

Aaron sez:"Richard, if you're going to "Mau Mau" the conversation with insults, be prepared to take some heat. I'm no longer in the insulting business so you're not going to get flak from me, but it's just a heads up."

Please see my comment, above. This poster can't be Richard. Richard left the blog comment section days ago, promising never to return. This person is an imposter pretending to be Richard -- after all, Richard, the REAL Richard,isn't a liar, is he? For example, this [phony] Richard logged on AGAIN to say this: "Their true motive is to prevent any resolution at all." Speaking personally, that is a total lie, which means this guy, whoever he is, is a liar, and is just making stuff up. So there's the question: Is the REAL Richard a LIAR? If so, then it's possible that this poster IS the REAL Richard. If the REAL Richard isn't a LIAR, then this guy's an imposter. And as an imposter, I will be tempted to note that every time he posts, and then I'll have to start getting the little garbage can to dump this imposter. I've warned people before to get a grip or I'll dump and now I'll have to warn, Stop logging on and pretending to be someone else or I'll start dumping. So, the person logging on as "Richard" needs to prove to everyone he's really Richard LeGros, (in which case, alas, he will also prove himself to be a LIAR) or this person can prove he's NOT Richard, just pretending to be him (which would also make him a LIAR.) Hmmmm, Hobson's Choice here.

alabamasue said...

Ann,
Please re-read what Richard actually wrote. It sounds to me that he was refusing to futher engage with Shedhead Mark Low (a wise move), not bidding farewell to blogging here. Geez...

Sewertoons said...

Oh good, Ann is back to speaking with us. I'm sure in trying to get through wsm's frequent and voluminous postings she accidently overlooked my question about her quote.

Her statement:
"Good questions. Like when the Ripley Plan was finished, why not hold a 218 vote to move forward? Do you suppose by that point the CSD was so hammered down by gunfire (TPW LAFCO, RWQC CDO/ACL, etc. they couldn't do anything at that point until it was finally too late and the patient bled to death, which was likely the plan all along?"

My question:
You are saying the Lisa board was never really interested in moving ahead with a sewer?

Richard LeGros said...

Ann,

I am the real Richard Blair LeGros.
You may call me at (805) 528-6594; speak directly to me; and you may verify that, yes indeed, it is I. You can trust the phone number and my invitation to call as I never lie.

As for leaving 'forever', you're fortunate I recovered from my ire regarding you and yours postings.

Why would I want to leave your lovely blog just because I'm annoyed? That would be small of me.

For that matter, why would you dump a blogger just because they annoy you? That would be small of you.

-R

Watershed Mark said...

RL wrote: As for leaving 'forever', you're fortunate I recovered...

Do you have a doctor's note?
You can post it here Ann's Land.

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

Ann,

'Toons makes a good point when she asks about your "hammered down by gunfire" statement.

Don't you think it was the board's job to plan for these things which either they knew about in advance (RWQCB, ACL) or that they should have known would be coming down the road based on their choice of actions (TPW, LAFCO)?

That the LOCSD chose not to take the deal that was the result of the negotiations in November 2005 was the nail in the coffin. The coffin door was slammed shut when they voted to stop the project before considering the ramifications of such a hasty action and before developing a careful strategy to achieve their goal of moving the plant to another location ... but when they ignored the lifeline thrown to them by the SWRCB, they doomed their board.

So ... it would appear that either they didn't really want a sewer in town or that they were so naive about how to achieve their goals that they had no business running for office in the first place.

Sewertoons said...

Ann, you have been in the thick of this for years. You know the players. I commend you for making that statement -- if "they had no plan" is what you really meant. Opening the door to truth may be painful, but it starts the path toward healing.

Churadogs said...

Lynette sez:"You are saying the Lisa board was never really interested in moving ahead with a sewer?"

No, I'm asking, Why wasn't a 218 vote held? No money to hold it? CSD under such heavy legal fire (CDO/ACL/TPW/LAFCO etc. they couldn't even get it moving forward before they died? It was a questions, Lynette, not some sort of opinion. A question.

Richard sez:"As for leaving 'forever', you're fortunate I recovered from my ire regarding you and yours postings.

Why would I want to leave your lovely blog just because I'm annoyed? That would be small of me.

For that matter, why would you dump a blogger just because they annoy you? That would be small of you."

So the looney moron pitching a drama queen hissy fit, lying and making stuff up WAS you? Gosh. Who would have thought. And your claim that you were leaving forever wasn't true? It was some kind of joke? And your false claim that I was the one who asked you to go away was also false, a lie? It was YOU who said you were leaving, not I? And even here, your claim that I'm threatening to dump someone who annoys me is also false, another lie, since I was threatening to dump an imposter who was making you look like a complete fool, NOT someone simply annoying me. (If I were dumping people who are annoying, that would eliminate a whole lot of you ankle-chewers) And, that with this posting, the real you, is STILL making stuff up? Even now? Jeese, Richard. Have you NO integrity?

Inlet sez:"but when they ignored the lifeline thrown to them by the SWRCB, they doomed their board."

What "lifeline" was that? The deal-abreaking bonding requirement the state knew, in advance, they would be unable to meet? That lifeline?

Inlet also sez:"or that they should have known would be coming down the road based on their choice of actions (TPW, LAFCO)?"

Who told the candidates running for the soon-to-be-recalled CSD -- before the recall -- that Gordon Henslely via Taxapyers Watch planned to call in LAFCO and attempt to dissolve the CSD? Or send an email demanding the RWQCB "fine the CSD out of existence." Who, in Los Osos, would ever have believed Pandora would have sent such an email? Without a crystal ball, who could/would have thought such things?

Lynette sez:"Ann, you have been in the thick of this for years. You know the players. I commend you for making that statement -- if "they had no plan" is what you really meant. Opening the door to truth may be painful, but it starts the path toward healing"

Sorry, but you don't have a good track record of understanding what I've said, so this comment doesn't make much sense to me. Have you misread what I wrote, again?

Richard LeGros said...

LOL Ann, you're a real hoot!

Making such a scene because I will not hold to my 'promise' to leave..... And you call me a drama queen!

Anyway, as I called you this morning from my home phone number (528-6594 on your caller ID) you KNOW that I am who I say I am.

-R

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

I wrote: "or that they should have known would be coming down the road based on their choice of actions (TPW, LAFCO)"

Ann replied: "Who told the candidates running for the soon-to-be-recalled CSD -- before the recall -- that Gordon Henslely via Taxapyers Watch planned to call in LAFCO and attempt to dissolve the CSD? Or send an email demanding the RWQCB 'fine the CSD out of existence.' Who, in Los Osos, would ever have believed Pandora would have sent such an email? Without a crystal ball, who could/would have thought such things?
"


Ann, the total amount of money and time the LOCSD spend on the LAFCO issue and the TPW lawsuit was not large enough to justify not moving forward with a plan. You write about a small lawsuit as if it would keep them from doing business. The previous board had several lawsuits (filed by a variety of familiar names, by the way) and they always managed to get their job done. While Lisa and Julie and Al got in the way, time-wise, the board always had direction and they always were moving somewhere.

Perhaps the issue is money. If the post-recall board chose to give away $750k to BWS, it is no surprise that they didn't have enough to do what they are obligated to do. Was it wise management?

Perhaps, had they taken a month after the recall to plan out a course of action which would not result in losing the SRF they could have achieved their goal. Had they not grandstanded by stopping construction immediately, they would not have triggered all of the bad things which have happened since.

Simply put, wise leadership asks itself what are all of the possible consequences of each option and how likely are each of those consequences ... before making a choice. It would have been less expensive to fix those floodwalls in New Orleans before Katrina hit ... but someone didn't really ask themselves what was the cheapest long run course of action. Similarly, even if the goal was to "move the sewer, no matter what it costs", it would be good to still make plans to move the treatment plant out of town in a way where we still control our water, still recharge our aquifer and avoid fines and lawsuits. Of course, that is just me talking after the fact. Could or should Lisa have forseen the LAFCO issue in particular? Maybe not, but she should have had plans which were so solid that they wouldn't be waylaid by a LAFCO hearing.

Watershed Mark said...

Swashbuckler Calhoun wrote: Have you misread what I wrote, again?

CHOICE Smack!!

Watershed Mark said...

Steve wrote: Simply put, wise leadership asks itself what are all of the possible consequences of each option and how likely are each of those consequences ... before making a choice.

You have sad a mouthful! Will this common sense "strategy" be applied now by SLOCO BOS or will history repeat itself?

Aaron said...

Richard,

I highly recommend that you no longer post your phone number because you may attract the wrong kind of people. The blog comments can be read by people on the Internet.

Sewertoons said...

Good point Aaron, but some of us are in the phone book (I don't know if Richard is or not but I am), so whether or not one posts the number - guess some of us wouldn't be too hard to find!

(As as side note, when I lived in LA, I was so paranoid, I had 2 unlisted phone numbers - one to give out for non-personal stuff and acquaintances, and one for only a select few - boy, have times changed!)

Watershed Mark said...

Garfinkle opined: “The “better solutions” have either not been tested in similar environments, been deemed highly unlikely to pass approval by governing agencies or been dismissed as too costly.”

If the TAC studied only those systems brought forward by the County's Technical Memos, what and where is the basis for this statement?

If the county’s DEIR and RFQ did not include sealed/welded gravity and it gets “slammed in” after the DEIR comment period other systems must be “allowed in” to keep the process clean and co-equal.

For instance if a particular extended aeration design like ox-ditch or Bio-Lac™ which use 900 kWh and 1.1 kWh a year respectively then USBF™ that uses 454 kWh another more efficient and greener extended aeration.

If something other than bell and spigot sewerage makes its way around the “process” because it is “better/more efficient/doesn’t leak/better for the environment” even if it costs more than bell and spigot, then co-equally, USBF™ can also make its way around the “process” because it is too “better/more efficient/uses half or more less energy/costs less to build and maintain/better for the environment even if it costs less than Bio-Lac™ or an oxidation ditch.

BTW what brand design ox-ditch is being offered? Where are the “test’ results for that design and for Bio-Lac™, in similar environments, Garfinkle thinks he needs?

Watershed Mark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Watershed Mark said...

For instance if a particular extended aeration design like ox-ditch or Bio-Lac™ which use 900 kWh and 1.1 kWh a year respectively have been considered for use then, USBF™ another more efficient and greener extended aeration design that uses 454 kWh, MUST BE CONSIDERED FOR USE.

That's the ticket.

Churadogs said...

Richard sez:"Making such a scene because I will not hold to my 'promise' to leave..... And you call me a drama queen!"

Ah, hah. So it WAS you who 'promised' to leave. You kept implying that I was the one who was just threatening to dump you for no reason at all. Another lie. Ah, Richard. Your credibility has gone bye-bye.

Inlet sez:"Perhaps the issue is money. If the post-recall board chose to give away $750k to BWS, it is no surprise that they didn't have enough to do what they are obligated to do. Was it wise management?"

About $600,000 of that was doomed by the previous recalled board trying to stop the vote on Measure B. From what I know about judgements to that point from the appeals court, that $600,000 was cheap and if they hadn't settled, would likely have been way worse.

Inlet also sez:"Had they not grandstanded by stopping construction immediately, they would not have triggered all of the bad things which have happened since."

If you remember, they didn't "stop work," they went into stand down mode, totally under the contract rules. One of the more interesting lawsuits now tied up in bnakruptcy was and is, just who "breached" that contract since the contract allowed 90 day standddown. That question has never been answered and needs to be answered, though I won't hold my breath.

Richard LeGros said...

LOL Ann, You ain't foolin' anyone!

Look at what I wrote...I placed an apostrophe enclosing the word 'promise' to denote that I was quoting YOU, ANN CALHOUN; cuz I didn't promise a thing!
Pretty itty bitty s m a l l of you for trying to insert that word to my original post Ann! LOL!!!!!

Never-the-less, I am so happy for you! You are obviously relieved now that you know an that an imposter Richard LeGros has NOT been posting on this blog. We all know how worried you have been.

-Richard LeGros; the real McCoy too!

Richard LeGros said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

When I mentioned that the post-recall board hamstrung themselves by their choice of paying BWS a ton of money, leaving about zero for doing the work they were mandated to do she replied:

"About $600,000 of that was doomed by the previous recalled board trying to stop the vote on Measure B. From what I know about judgements to that point from the appeals court, that $600,000 was cheap and if they hadn't settled, would likely have been way worse."

Funny. Perhaps you overlooked earlier the discussion about neglecting to get a second opinion before giving away that money. Many people disagree with the choice of bringing in McClendon. It appears that he was only around for the purpose of making the case to give Julie Biggs more than half a million dollars. Certainly his background did not justify hiring him. Certainly his background also predisposed him to say "give Julie the bucks" and little else. Back at that time I believed we had a discussion about the expected value for the "let it ride" strategy of not settling with Julie and we concluded that unless the chance of losing the appeal was above 25% (which I doubt) and the appellate judge was assured to award 3x damages (which I doubt), McClendon overstated the benefits of settlement. Then there is the other question about BWS refusing to provide detailed billing records to justify that all that work ... which the post-recall LOCSD paid for ... was actually related to work she did for Al Barrow. And then another issue comes to mind ... why would Julie work for Al for free and rack up over half a million that she never expected to get paid for? I really think that she expected to get paid somehow. I truly believe that the post-recall board settlement with BWS and the hiring of Biggs was a payoff for a whole lot of work done for "free'. In other words, I believe that Julie Biggs said "I'll do this, that and the other for you pro-bono but if you get elected, you will to A, B and C for me in return for my work now." Quid-pro-quo, not pro-bono.


As for quibbling over stopping work versus standing down, I refer you to the contract between the SWRCB and the LOCSD. The LOCSD is not allowed to stop work other than for emergency purposes (like finding an archeological site) without prior permission of the SWRCB. Unless this permission was obtained, the clause you are telling us the LOCSD was using was not used appropriately. They stopped work and they know it even if you don't.


Ann, Richard has a really good point when he called you out. You have regularly and consistently criticized people on one side of these issues and advocated for the other side. Perhaps you aren't willing to admit it in your blog, but you cannot be in this much denial that you don't know it. The question is why ... do you really believer that your actions have helped achieve something better?

Are we better off now that we voted for the recall that you advocated (even though you never wrote "I encourage voting for the recall")? The truth and reconsillyation omission you want should maybe start with you. Maybe if you admit your mistakes in your blog it will give Richard the permission to admit his mistakes and the community will benefit. If you want others to admit their own mistakes but refuse to fess up to your own, your plea for reconsillyation seems hallow.

Watershed Mark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Watershed Mark said...

Richard,
Me thinketh thou doth protest too much.

Watershed Mark said...

After Kid McCoy (Norman Selby,1873-1940), American welterweight boxing champion.

The story goes, and there are various versions of it, that a drunk (RL) challenged Selby (Calhoun) to prove that (s)he was McCoy and not one of the many lesser boxers trading under the same name. After being knocked to the floor the drunk (RL) rose to admit that 'Yes, that's the real McCoy'.

Watershed Mark said...

Are we better off now that we voted for the recall that you advocated (even though you never wrote "I encourage voting for the recall")?

YES.
Technology that is more efficient, conserves energy and is less costly to build and operate is now available and you now know it.

Don't you think that more information is available now than was available to before the recall?

Of course I don't expect a straight answer from Steve.

Churadogs said...

Richard sez:"$600,000 spent by the recalled board to fight Measure B?'"

Yep, that was settlement money and not settling would have likely cost a judge-chosen formula of maybe 3x that amount. That choice of your Board to block Measure B cost this community a bundle.

Inlet sez:"concluded that unless the chance of losing the appeal was above 25% (which I doubt) and the appellate judge was assured to award 3x damages (which I doubt),"

A review of appelate ruling (including the most reason one that McClendon's firm won against Wal Mart) clearly indicates that judges and appeals courts don't like people blocking votes, no matter how silly the vote is or how likely it is to fail. The whole thinking is, hold the vote THEN dump the initiative. Chosing not to do that was the bad decision tht cost this community a bundle.

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

Ann,

Repeating a theory often enough doesn't make it a fact.

You say that a review of the ruling makes it clear ... tell me ... what are the key differences between the W*ll-M*rt case and the Measure B case? The extent to which the two situations really are identical is the extent to which a different appellate court would choose to listen to (but not necessarily follow the ruling of) the W*ll-M*rt ruling.

That being said ... and clearly McClendon could not fairly assess the merits of his advice, being intimately tied to the W*ll-M*rt case ... what was the 2nd opinion the LOCSD got?

Oh? They didn't get a 2nd opinion before acting? They took the advice from a person who would benefit greatly from offering that advice and didn't even bother checking what they were told were "facts"?

Sounds to me like it was the post-recall board who likely cost us that $600k.

Were can we find that ruling, Ann, so that we can assess for ourselves whether McClendon was lying or whether you are right?

franc4 said...

Mike sez...
" (BTW, when will PZLDF ever PAY their agreed portion of their failed lawsuit?)

franc4 sez...BTW, MORON, when will TW pay the rest of the fee they owe for the recall?

I see you are just as confused and wrong as ever....since you always seem to agree with those that are more stupid than you.....if that is possible.
Billy comes to mind as well as 'toons.

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

Franc,

I don't know that the two situations area comparable.

What Mike is insinuating is that PZLDF and Sullivan have defrauded the LOCSD by asking the LOCSD to pay only 25% of the total legal costs when they might really be covering a much higher fraction.

It is sort of like this ... if your health insurance asks you to cover 20% of the costs and they pay the rest. If you have a bill from the hospital that says $100k, you would be on the hook for $20k. Suppose that after you pay the $20k, the hospital agrees with the insurance company to reduce the bill from $100k to $25k (such discounts are not unusual, by the way). Does the insurance company only have to pay the hospital $5k because you've already paid $20k ... or should you be responsible for only 20% of the $25k bill and thus deserve a $15k refund?

I would imagine that if Sullivan is playing the role of hospital, the LOCSD is paying the role of patient and PZLDF is playing the role of insurance company in our little play, it would be easy for the LOCSD to pony up their share of the bill only for the bill later to be reduced, leaving the LOCSD paying far greater than their agreed 25% of the total costs.

We need to see records from Sullivan and PZLDF to verify that the LOCSD wasn't defrauded. If PZLDF and Sullivan are unwilling to provide verification that, indeed, PZLDF paid $600k, I think the LOCSD is owed money from Sullivan.


This is quite different from TW asking LAFCO for extended time to pay down their obligated costs ... that's more like a person paying their Vet over time for the unexpected cat health crisis.


In both of these situations there is an honorable way of going about things. Only in one of these situations is the honorable thing being done.