End Game, Part Two? Three?

The results of the failed Rates & Charges protest vote hearing at the BOS: 

50% plus one of property owners needed for a successful protest

There were 5,262 notices sent out.

2,632 were needed for a successful protest

801 valid protests were actually received.

15% of the homeowners in the PZ protested

There’s no way of knowing how many people received the long, rambling, incomprehensive 2-page, double-sided notification letter dense with type and with protest vote information buried deep in the bottom half of the third page and figured it was just argle-bargle and tossed it out. As intended.

Public comment notes: 

Mr. Murphy of Reclamator fame was there “on behalf of the people of Los Osos,” wearing a black cowboy hat, black leather jacket and sporting a spiffy grizzled goatee. God alone in his infinite, mysterious wisdom, knows what Murphy thought to do or say or accomplish.  Until he plopped some sort of letter with signatures and a fancy-looking seal on it into the overhead projector and proceeded to announce that Los Osos was in line to receive piles of money from some really swell sounding organization with the words “water” and “green” and “international” in it and we’re talking PILES of money here, Midas-like piles, more money than what’s offered by Publisher’s Clearing House with their promises of vast riches, like BILLIONS, no, wait, multi—billions, TRILLIONS, free money just waiting to rain down on Los Osos, all sworn to by some people or other who, yes, right there, actually signed this here piece of paper, three signatures, look, right there, it’s official, all for the asking in this year of our Lord, 2010, money raining down from the south seas, Yes, Yes, money, piles of money and international and green and water and some signatures somewhere.  Right.  Sure. Swell hat, Murph.

The rest of the public comments were the usual:  Questions about how this “vote” was set up and run, complaints of confusion over the procedure, complaints of not using best science (Paavo’s old “let the best technology rise to the top” ploy – Bwahahahah), demands of a neutral oversight/audit of what this project has morphed into (the old back-scratching Paavo/MWH/Wallace Group/ Corollo two-step? No design-build for you, Los Osos!),  worries about affordability, questions about why the cost of the project was so quickly dismissed, protests over the violation of the original Mission Statement, requests that the BOS verify whether Dana Ripley’s plan actually would be $50 million cheaper and would be capped and guaranteed (a simple enough thing to check, one would think, if one were actually interested in a claim of $50 mil), questions about what’s going to happen to people who can’t afford this, what will happen to defaulted properties by people who can’t afford this, will those costs be dumped on the rest of the homeowners,  protests about voting ourselves out of our own homes, objections that the water/sewer numbers for commercial properties are wrong, that homeowners are subsidizing the commercial users, (Will Clemmens later noted that the (slightly incorrect) numbers used now can be adjusted later from guesstimates to real water billing records, while one wit noted that with huge amounts of discretionary income being removed from the community, a lot of the businesses will close and won’t be using any water so if the numbers are wrong, it won’t matter anymore),a non-protest paean by Joyce Albright, lauding Paavo and the Board and dismissing the “obstructionists,” a protest by Keith Wimer of the Sustainability Group because the project doesn’t mitigate for financial devastation, that there has been no affordability studies done, no life cycle costs analysis done even though it’s supposed to be done, a claim that even high-tech on-site individual systems may now be cheaper than this project, yet not allowed by the RWQCB (more Bwahahahah), objections that Los Osos will have the highest water costs in the country, pleads that real-time issues with the different water purveyors be fixed before proceeding, notice of the non-protest  by the CSD and the information that the CSD will now be starting work to have the Help Us We’re Poor and Dying Here cap in hand to try to get grants because the cost will hammer the town into the dust. 

The BOS response to the really serious questions about people losing their homes because they cannot afford this project?  Silence. Followed by Supervisor Gibson’s terse lecture to the audience that affordability is NOT an issue here.  This project will be what it will be.  Period.

And the palpable relief from the Board that they would no longer have to listen to all these pathetic whiners and complainers and “obstructionists” any more.  Done.  End game.

Moved that the rates and charges ordinance be adopted: 5-0.  Adjourned.

You Need To Say That Again, The BOS Is No Longer Listening

Bev De-Witt Moylan read the following to the BOS during public comment at yesterday’s Rates & Charges hearing. I’m not sure Joyce Albright was in the audience at the time.  I hope she was since she needed to hear Bev’s comments. Bev’s metaphor is one both citizens and elected officials should always keep in mind.  Canaries in coal mines can be dismissed as “obstructionists,” and whiners and painted in other negative colors, but the conditions in the mine they are warning about with their deaths still need to be addressed.  Posted with permission.

During a workshop on cancer I attended last spring a marriage and family therapist compared cancer in the body to the acting out child in a family.  Like the acting-out child cancer tends to get people’s attention she said.  It signals that some aspect of the patient’s life is out of balance.

The therapist said she loves acting-out children because they are the bravest members of their families.  They are the ones who know the family secrets; they cannot tolerate them; and simply by virtue of their courage and honesty they cannot help sending out warning signals that something is terribly out of balance in the family.

Not surprisingly families view these children as the problem she said.  The acting-out child is an inconvenient embarrassment. The family wants someone to cure the child, to remove the child, to make the child stop doing what he is doing so the family can live out their dysfunctional patterns in unspoken agreement. 

The family investment in separating the acting-out child from themselves is great.  Each family member’s ability to continue to ignore the truth depends on it, the therapist told us. 

And so it is with the intrepid people who appear thanklessly before you every week at great personal hardship to be a voice for the underrepresented and unrepresented in Los Osos.  With the naïve hope that perhaps this time said in this way you will hear, they repeat the secret aloud that something is terribly wrong.  For that they are scolded, demeaned, threatened, silenced, removed, and apologized for.

These inconvenient embarrassments are courageous community members who risk scorn and public humiliation every time they appear.  You perceive frustration; they perceive indifference.  You perceive hostility; they perceive dysfunction.  I respectfully request that this Board consider that what you perceive as acting-out is the desperate exercise of constitutional rights by citizens trying to defend themselves and their neighbors from a government that appears to be coercive and non-responsive.  Scolding, threats, and shows of force only cement that perception.  Respecting citizens by listening to their opinions, and responding to their concerns, even when you have to work hard to do it, is part of being a public servant. 

Ripley Writes To The CC, But Is Anyone Listening?

The following excerpt will be/is part of the “public comment presented” to the Coastal Commissison for their Hearing tomorrow. Fifty million dollars will buy a lot of bananas. It’s also strange that the CC says they’re interested in “cost,” but is that anything more than window-dressing and/or an optional consideration? And what about the goal of competitive bidding as promised in the 218 vote? More window-dressing? More options? And what’s with the reference to “change orders,” which, of course, equals a no-cap, open ended, sky’s the limit cost.

Well, anybody want to lay odds on how the votes as to how “cost” and fair-bids  and change orders will fare Friday? Naw, me neither. Not here in “Chinatown,” at any rate. Done deals is done deals and if the community wants a more expensive project, then who is the Coastal Commission to deny them their wish?

Honorable Commissioners:

I am Dana Ripley, team leader for the Los Osos Wastewater Plan Update1

The process schematic of the 2006 Update Plan is very similar to the process schematic that I prepared for inclusion in the recently published “Water Reuse” textbook (McGraw Hill, 2007) as Figure 13-15. Thecaption of that figure reads:prepared in 2006 for the Los

Osos Community Services District.

Our final report was completed in August 2006 and was validated by the National Water Research Institute in December 2006. Septic Tank Effluent Pump (STEP) collection isfundamental to the “2006 Update Plan” and is, in my opinion, fundamental to the long term success ofthe Los Osos wastewater project.

Schematic flow diagram of comprehensive water reclamation and reuse plan incorporating STEPsystems for low-, medium-, and high-density communities.



A copy of this schematic is provided as Attachment A. It represents what I believe to be state-of-the-artin small community wastewater collection, treatment, and reuse whether constructed for a new development or for an existing community upgrading to central collection and treatment.

My testimony to the Commission today will focus on cost and affordability. CC staff recognizes the importance of affordability to Los Osos homeowners and businesses as follows:

The affordability of the project has been and will continue to be a major concern for the residents of Los Osos2


1 Ripley Pacific Company, Los Osos Wastewater Management Plan Update for the Los Osos Community ServicesDistrict, San Luis Obispo County, CA, Wastewater Collection Treatment, Storage, and Water Recycling: Beneficial Reuse of Water and Nutrients. Digital and hardcopy provided to CC-Santa Cruz staff on February 8, 2010..

2 Application A-3-SLO-09-055/069 staff report, May 27, 2010, p.2

The single largest factor influencing affordability is obviously the project’s construction cost. The estimated construction cost of the 2006 Update Plan prepared by our team is presented as AttachmentB3. For comparison, San Luis Obispo County’s latest cost estimate for the gravity-based system is presented as Attachment C4

Based on my review of the two construction cost budgets, assuming service to both developed and undeveloped properties and cost escalation to 2010 dollars, the cost difference between the two systems is at least $50 million. That is, the 2006 Ripley Update Plan cost utilizing STEP collection technology is at least $50 million less than the cost for the County’s gravity-based collection, treatment, and reuse plan..

The actual cost difference between the two system alternatives could in fact be substantially greater than $50 million. For STEP construction, there is relatively low construction cost risk since excavations are shallow and impacts of unforeseen conditions can be mitigated easily. For this reason, the STEP contractor has offered a guaranteed maximum price cost basis to SLO County.

For gravity construction, however, construction cost risk is significantly higher due to deeper excavations and difficulty of dealing with unforeseen conditions such as high groundwater and archeological sites. The contractor will be required to fuse-weld at least 12% of the collection system and more if high groundwater is encountered beyond that already mapped. SLO County would be compelled to accept change orders for these unforeseen conditions which in essence provides for an open-ended contract, irrespective of what the winning competitive bid cost number is. Of course, the extent of change order costs cannot be known until project construction is complete.

I also note that the County’s budget for Broderson leachfields does not include a redundant disposal option as recommended by the project hydrogeologist due to the uncertainty of winter dispersal capacity at that site5

Based on the foregoing comments, it would be likely that the completed cost difference between the two systems could be substantially greater than the $50 million difference represented by the two attached budgets.

The Broderson leachfield system is a $6.1 million line item that may need to bereplicated at one or more other undetermined locations to provide sufficient winter dispersal capacity. Even with the minimum $50 million cost difference, the Commission is faced with at least two issues inconsistent with the Coastal Act if the applicant’s gravity collection system is constructed.

First, Coastal Act Section 30604(g) states:

The Legislature finds and declares that it is important for the commission to encourage th eprotection of existing and the provision of new affordable housing opportunities for persons of low and moderate income in the coastal zone.

3 2006 Ripley Update Plan, Table ES-5.
4 San Luis Obispo County, from SWRCB Credit Review Checklist, April 23, 2010, Table 1.1.
5 Spencer Harris, hydrogeologist, San Luis Obispo Planning Commission, June 30, 2009; “You’d better have capacity somewhere else.”
3Los Osos Wastewater Project Dana Ripley, PE CA Coastal Comm. June 11, 2010 De Novo Hearing Public Comment

A cost difference of this magnitude has a direct impact on affordability. A lower project construction cost will lessen the impact to low- and moderate-income residents living within the coastal zone.

Secondly, Coastal Act Section 30120 defines treatment works6

. . any devices and systems used in the storage, treatment, recycling, and reclamation of
municipal sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature to implement section 1281 of this title, or necessary to recycle or reuse water at the most economical cost over the estimated life of the works. .

, as follows:

Consistency with this section of the Coastal Act would require that the most economical plan be implemented, irrespective of any technology preference by the project owner. The $50 million difference in the two estimates would likely preclude the gravity system as a viable alternative.

I am aware of the applicant’s technology preference against STEP collection for reasons such as green house gas emissions, soil disturbance numbers, nitrogen removal, on-lot easements, and on-lot pumping. I believe that each of these issues can be resolved in favor of STEP collection given the opportunity in an open forum. It also must be reiterated that the STEP collection alternative was CEQA certified as environmentally superior in 2001, was determined to be a viable collection alternative in the current project EIR, and was intended to compete with gravity collection through the bidding process pursuant to the Proposition 218 assessment vote in 2007. Finally, the Request for Qualifications prepared by SLO County in December 2008 presented both gravity collection and STEP collection as accepted alternatives for interested design-build teams bidding on the Los Osos wastewater project.

Only with elevation of the STEP team into the competitive bidding process with guaranteed maximum bids can the $50 million cost differential presented above be ascertained one way or the other. The Commission should seek the assurance that the competitive bid process promised by the Proposition 218 vote will be preserved and that consistency with Coastal Act Sections 30120 and 30604 is upheld.

Including this requirement as a permit condition today will not only assure Proposition 218 and Coastal Act consistency, but will assure that project timelines remain in place to “maximize the project’s eligibility to receive funding support that can offset local costs” as urged by SLO County and your staff. Thank you for your consideration of these cost and affordability issues, and I am available for questions.

/dr

6 Definition of treatment works as set forth in Federal Water Pollution Control Act per Coastal Act Section 30120.