Calhouns Can(n)ons

Tuesday, March 28, 2006

The following is a press release from the Los Osos CSD concerning the selection of a firm to update the Wastewater Report.

PRESS RELEASE:

On February 7, 2006 the District issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) to prospective consultants for the preparation of a Wastewater Facilities Project Report Update. Ten potential consulting firms received information on the project. On March 3, 2006, three proposals were received for the project from the following firms:

· ABG Inc.
· Ripley Pacific Company
· Lombardo Associates, Inc.

Both the selection team of engineers and the Wastewater Committee provided recommendations for the Board’s consideration. The selection team recommended and the Board elected to negotiate with Ripley Pacific Company for the following key reasons:

· Strong regulatory and wastewater system experience in California, including large scale STEP experience.
· Familiarity with Los Osos wastewater project issues from previous reviews and analysis
· Strong agricultural exchange expertise

The Scope of Work and fee is to be negotiated by LOCSD Staff. The RFP included a broad scope that could require a substantial level of effort. The Board may decide to streamline the process to focus the Project Report Update on fewer treatment plant sites and project elements. For example, if the Board elects to analyze STEP/STEG, two treatment plant sites, and water management options, the consulting fees could be greatly reduced. The Board will vote on a final contract for consulting services at its April 6, 2006, Board meeting. The LOCSD has set an aggressive time table; the consultants will prepare draft recommendations for the community review this summer; with the final Updated Project Report due in August 2006.

41 comments:

Shark Inlet said...: I find it troubling that the press release hints that they might choose to limit the scope of the study to fewer technologies, collection systems and sites than they had originally intended. Yes, it would be silly to study the option of pumping it all to Bakersfield for treatment, but it seems pennywise and pound foolish to not compare all reasonable options now. If one truly believed the previous board didn't study all the options before making their decisions, this should also be very telling.; 10:10 AM, March 28, 2006
Ron said...: Ann has said it before -- it's not rocket science. See how easy things are when you don't try to get cute with "out of the box thinking" in an attempt to become a "model" for other communities with your "drop dead gorgeous" sewer-parks.

Major bouquets to the new CSD board for launching a sensible plan -- get some highly qualified waste water engineers, have them develop a reality-based project, and just get the hell out of the way -- brilliant.

Did you see Ripley's Quote in the Trib?

"(The current board) "took bold actions to stop a project with inherent design flaws that unnecessarily divided the community, neighbor against neighbor."

Unnecessarily divided, indeed.

I can't remember where I saw the following quote -- I think it was in the comments section of this blog a few months back -- but it's one of my favorite, all-time sewer quotes:

"Friends don't let friends design sewers."

Does anyone want to take credit, or remember who said that? That's a great line.; 10:26 AM, March 28, 2006
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: I find it interesting that the board had all the money in the world to spend on lawyers, but when it comes down to revising the large scope for the plans that they started with, down to step/steg because of MONEY, NOT the time pressure that we are under, I find that telling and duplicitous.; 11:39 AM, March 28, 2006
Shark Inlet said...: One thing has been bothering me for the last two to three weeks ... why hasn't someone, anyone, perhaps from the Wastewater Committee or the Finance Committee or even someone from the home office of the CSD even sketched out what the costs are likely to be for the alternative sites and technologies.

It would appear that Rob Miller had the ability to work with Lisa, Dan and Darrin last October to sketch out the various costs associated with some aspects of the proposed changes. Why can't the CSD even hint at what the costs will likely be?

I suspect that in part it is because the ultimate costs are unknown and they don't want to appear to be promising something that they don't ultimately deliver (like "better, faster, cheaper").

Even so, because they told us during the recent campaign that they would be saving us money by moving the plant, they should at least provide a guesstimate as to how this could be accomplished.

Myself, I just don't see the costs going down. Several times here I have made approximate calculations that show costs will be going up.

Ann herself replied to one of my postings on the matter by saying that we should wait for the results of the RFP. Now that the CSD has formally chosen a bidder and hinted that they're not really going to study all the possible sites and all the possible technologies and all the possible collection systems I have to wonder whether they've already made up their minds about what is "best". As to Ron's excellent point above, we'll have a good system if we simply let the pros do the work. I am afraid that Ripley was chosen (in part) because the Board knew that Ripley would present a plan that the board had already decided is what they wanted ... the truth be damned. I am also afraid that if you limit the scope of the question considerably, you might not find out what really is the cheapest and best system.; 1:41 PM, March 28, 2006
Anonymous said...: Shark Inlet:
"Myself, I just don't see the costs going down. Several times here I have made approximate calculations that show costs will be going up."
No doubt unimpeachable calculations coming from such an expert source.
Objective too...; 3:06 PM, March 28, 2006
Shark Inlet said...: Dogpatch ...

Sounds like you doubt me. Fine. Here's a question then ... suppose you wanted to convince people that my calculations were wrong but you wanted to restrict your discussion to the calculations themselves and their deficienciencies, not to any discussion of my bias ... how would you do that?

My point really is pretty clear ... until someone from your "it will be cheaper, dammit" side steps up and provides even a plausible (let along probable) reason for thinking costs won't skyrocket ... the rest of us will have to simply conclude that you and your buddies are (to quote Homer Simpson) "living in a world of makebelieve! Full of elves and fairies and leprecauns, and little frogs with funny little hats!"; 4:35 PM, March 28, 2006
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 5:09 PM, March 28, 2006
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: "Friends don't let friends design sewers."

Since Ripley was, by the board's admission, familiar with Los Osos, (see the 50 page tome off the Tribune site that they submitted days after the lame 3-pager that won them the job), had spoken at a town hall meeting in here in 2003, and submitted a plan for the Andre site, so do you think that Lisa and Julie didn't know him?

You might argue "friends," but friends can be of many types.

I believe that the old board really did study different options. Wasn't Mr. Helmsley a proponent of ponds until that was shot down? This board appears to be chosing not to look at options. How is this more fair than what went down before?; 5:10 PM, March 28, 2006
Anonymous said...: Page 11, SewerRedesign.PDF

"In accordance with directives of the District Engineer and District Interim General Manager at the consultants's pre bid meeting of February 23,2006 at Sea Pines, this consultant team has elected to defer preparation of detailed manpower estimates until such time that a detailed scope of work can be formulated directly with the Board and staff. Gen the uncertainty of specific task items, a preliminary estimate is presented as a budget range. The range is submitted separely in this transmittal in a sealed envelope. The budget range incorporates the hourly billing rates presented in Appendix C."

It seems that the deal was agreed to on February 23, long before the March 16th CSD meeting anouncing their proposal acceptance!

And what's with the sealed envelope bid and the hourly rates for their "team" of $760/hour for four senior positions, 64 others making from $45-$155/hour and a job titled "expert witness" drawing $275/hour?

Somebody correct me, but I do not see any reference to studying of alternatives. What I do see is Ripley's 2003 "Alternative" project.; 5:48 PM, March 28, 2006
Churadogs said...: Shark Inlet said,"One thing has been bothering me for the last two to three weeks ... why hasn't someone, anyone, perhaps from the Wastewater Committee or the Finance Committee or even someone from the home office of the CSD even sketched out what the costs are likely to be for the alternative sites and technologies."

Let me take a wild stab here, do you suppose the Wastewater Committee or the Finance Committee and or the Somebody are WAITING until Ripley FINISHES his report, a report that's supposed to result in plans (plural), hopefully with projected costs, BEFORE speculating or guestimating or sending up trial baloons or trying to count angels on heads of pins or some such?

Anonymous said, "One thing has been bothering me for the last two to three weeks ... why hasn't someone, anyone, perhaps from the Wastewater Committee or the Finance Committee or even someone from the home office of the CSD even sketched out what the costs are likely to be for the alternative sites and technologies."

Since when did a "budget range" become a done deal? I always thought a "budget range" was, a "range," as in, from A to X will cost between $1.98 and $150 million. You know, "range?" Done deals are: Scope A will Cost $47.95. Period.

Shark Inlet said," Now that the CSD has formally chosen a bidder and hinted that they're not really going to study all the possible sites and all the possible technologies and all the possible collection systems I have to wonder whether they've already made up their minds about what is "best". "

What's missing here is the reality that the recalled Board closed several doors to this community when they started pounding money into the ground before the election. They effectively cripped this community from the "luxury" of "examining all options." That could have been done if the old Board hadn't kept linking sites to the "strongly held community values of a park next to a sewer plant" (and eliminating sites that were designated as "enviromentally superios," and likely more flexible (more bang for the buck) & etc. and if they hadn't proceeding to financially cripple this community by pounding millions into the sand before the elction. For that reason, some options are never going to be on the table, ever. What's left is what the old board (and the RWQCB) has left us with -- some very, very limited options.Sad, but there you are. Those limited options will be looked at by Ripley and we'll see what systems come up and at what price.; 7:35 AM, March 29, 2006
Anonymous said...: Wrong again, Ann:

What's missing here is the reality that the CSD closed several doors by stopping everything and postponing hearings on Measure B.

What's missing is that there was no plan presented to the voters by the recall folks (and Ann) about costs, contracts, legal issues, fines, you name it. It was all poo-poohed (so to speak) with generalities to get elected.

But that's how you get elected in this country, and then once elected, you blame the previous administration or anyone else you can think of. It's true about Clinton and Bush, and yes, our very own CSD.; 8:57 AM, March 29, 2006
Shark Inlet said...: Perhaps they want to wait until Ripley finishes their review of whatever the CSD tells them they should review before they'll tell us a cost estimate.

However, if STEP is the only collection system being studied, how would this help us determine whether STEP is less or more expensive than gravity?

One reasonable reason for limiting the scope of inquiry to fewer technologies and sites is that we would expect that the other alternatives are far more expensive. However, if you don't have a cost guesstimate about STEP versus gravity, you've provided no justification for studying only STEP.

If that is what happens, be prepared for the RTTF (really technical task force) to second-guess every choice this board makes.

I can't figure out why the group that ran on a platform of we have a plan that will save money and we want to study all the alternatives and reach a consensus would refuse to study any of the possibilities, including TriW. Ann, way back last Fall you told us that the new CSD board would compare all possibilities including TriW. This board is now claimng that they'll save money by not checking out all alternatives. I would suggest that the amount saved (maybe on the order of $100k) will be swamped by probable cost differences with plans not studied ... clearly neglecting to study all reasonable options is very unwise.; 10:31 AM, March 29, 2006
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: Perfectly said, shark. Thank you.

I wonder how this CSD's supporters feel about this switcheroo? Used, maybe? Cheated?; 12:13 PM, March 29, 2006
Shark Inlet said...: Funny to say, but I don't think that most of the CSD supporters mind at all.

Witness Ann for one ... she has had ample opportunity here to hint at any dissatisfaction with their choices but no complaints have appeared.

Furthermore, most CSD supporters (other than those who want NO SEWER AT ALL) probably think that STEP is some sort of magic solution to save money and that whatever site and technology this CSD board will choose to study will be far better than the TriW plan.

Simply put, I think it is blind faith that this board is simply better than the last board.; 1:12 PM, March 29, 2006
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: Wow shark, that is a pretty sad (but true) comment on the mentalities out there. Well, maybe they won't get to test out this faith, as the SRF monies have been frozen by Judge Picquet. I don't know what else they will use for money to push their project any further. Maybe Ripley's blind faith?; 6:36 PM, March 29, 2006
Mike Green said...: Blind faith! Well put, yes it's always blind faith that wins- elections- sadly so or not, it's reality.
People vote generally on what is published in the voter pamphlet. They are not aware of the wealth of info out there, and maybe it's just too much work anyway.
Sadly, I think most people think voting is a waste of time.
"All for one and everyman for himself"
may be the smartest bet of all.; 8:36 PM, March 29, 2006
Shark Inlet said...: I almost agree with you, Mike. The reason I don't is that some things, like sewer and fire services are more efficiently provided by government. If that's the point of the LOCSD ... to provide sewer and fire services it seems that the CSD isn't really doing their job very well ... even though they've hired a company to study an alterenative or two, it seems that money will be necessary to design and build a WWTF and collection system. If the CSD doesn't have money they can't do the job. Unfortunateely they don't have the ability to raise money very easily. Typically a government could charge for sewer services, but the LOCSD can't because we don't have one yet, so that's not going to work. We could borrow money to get the work done ... but not without the approval of those who own the properties. The problem here would seem to be that property owners in the LOCSD overwhelmingly wanted to continue with the TriW project because they think it would have saved money and they overwhelmingly feel that the current board isn't making wise choices. I imagine that any 218 vote to borrow money to design a new plant would be met with a "No way ... we already paid for a design!" vote.

I just don't see how it's going to fly without the CSD compromising a bit. If they were willing (like in the "negotiations") to agree to go ahead with TriW if TriW were cheaper or if a fixed timeperiod (like 1.5 years) were to go by without approval from the County, CCC and RWQCB of an "alternative" WWTF, I believe the property owners would feel far more comfortable. I believe the reason the Dreamers supported the result of the "negotiations" is that they felt some sense of assurance from the LOCSD board that it wouldn't be more than a two year delay.

Essentially, I believe that this board needs to realize they're dead in the water unless they agree to "work together" with the community to achieve some "consensus" about what should be done. If they continue with their "we won ... TriW is dead ... get over it" attitude, they're going to last until November at the latest and the only result of their short reign will be more bad blood in our community and higher bills.; 9:41 PM, March 29, 2006
Mike Green said...: Sharkey said:
"I almost agree with you, Mike. The reason I don't is that some things, like sewer and fire services are more efficiently provided by government."
Uh, I'm not sure how I should respond, got any recent examples you would like to share, that remotely correspond to us?
"If you don't bet on yourself then you are losing on the winner everytime, even if its you."; 7:49 PM, March 30, 2006
Churadogs said...: Shark Inlet said: "The problem here would seem to be that property owners in the LOCSD overwhelmingly wanted to continue with the TriW project because they think it would have saved money and they overwhelmingly feel that the current board isn't making wise choices. I imagine that any 218 vote to borrow money to design a new plant would be met with a "No way ... we already paid for a design!" vote."

Who were the property owners who overwhelmingly wanted to continue with Tri W, and how did they indicate that preference? The recall vote or the Measure B vote or was there some kind of poll?

If some of the above discussion is based on the March 28th Trib story, then it's misplaced since the Trib story about "the plan" was made up stuff. There was/is no plan, yet, since the contract with Ripley is still being negotiated. The Trib story was ??? a trial baloon? Complete fabrication? Speculation disguised as fact? ???

As for the limitations on the scope of what Ripley's going to do, because the old board failed to honestly look at all options (minus the "fatal flaw" of the intown "strongly held community values --i.e. the park"), because the old board wasted gazillions by starting the project before the recall, the time frame and financial limitations have closed paths that could have been examined.The options left are limited. That's the practical reality. Unless the community wants to hold a Prop 218 assessment vote to raise the money to "explore all options," as Shark seems to want, but which he also notes seems unlikely.; 6:09 AM, March 31, 2006
Anonymous said...: Wrong yet again, Ann:

To say the board failed to look at all options is disingenous. They looked at over 8 options, including STEP. One can point to the shortcomings of the method used to judge the selected solution, taking potshots is easy. No analysis will ever look at ALL options, there's an infinite number.

Speaking of fatal flaws, the community voted for a fatally flawed plan that was in front of them, prior to that election. The community chose to ignore the fatal flaw. The discharge prohibition is over 20 years, in case Ann (or anyone else) hadn't noticed. In the last election, there simply was no plan to consider.

Some of the new board members, who Ann refuses to take to task, have advocatd a similar fatally flawed (on-site) approach. Ann, you are the height of hypocrisy.

The old board certainly committed Los Osos to a project, as it had the perogative to do. When you voted Ann, were you warned from your new board members (or any lawyers, for that matter) about the potential of severe costs for broken contracts? Were they ignorant or lying in their failure to warn you about that? But then it's hard, when columnists provide a drumbeat of half/mis-information.

'Who were the property owners who overwhelmingly wanted to continue with Tri W, and how did they indicate that preference? The recall vote or the Measure B vote or was there some kind of poll?'

It's good to see Ann is finally on board and that the property owners SHOULD have had an opertunity to vote on whether to go forward with the Tri-W project. Her new board didn't let that hapen.

Keep up the good work Ann as the chief apologist and Los Osos excuse maker. BTW, your sewer bill realisticly probably stands at about $45/month for the next 30 years for NO SEWER, plus about $180/month for pumping. Ann, do you realize that the new Los Osos law firm may walk away from this thing with up to a million or more. The last CSD legal fees were about $600k for 4 years. But hey, keep those opines coming!; 8:30 AM, March 31, 2006
Shark Inlet said...: Ann, a few things are worth focusing on a bit.

First, unless the property owners are overwhelmingly in favor of TriW the recent election results can only be explained by renters voting against the recall.

I guess you are calling the Trib reporter, Hyatt, a buffoon. There is no other explanation for getting things as wrong as you claim. I guess that Ron Crawford must be pretty silly for thinking that Hyatt is a good reporter. I guess you are pretty silly for trusting Ron ... wait, we've come full circle.

You are the one who told us the RFP would allow us to study all the options including TriW ... then you told us that the RFP would study all options except for TriW ... now you are telling me that it is okay with you that Ripley will study only one or two options. Don't you feel somewhat lied to?

The excuse for studying only a few options ... not enough money ... well, if the CSD hadn't settled all those silly lawsuits by paying off lawyers who had already lost their cases we might just have some money ... oh yeah ... the CSD board doesn't have any money because their only source of funds is the SRF money they've refused to return to the State which wants it back and refused to pay the contractors, the group that they money was intended to pay. Because I know Ann will write something about "pounding money into the ground" unless I mention it first ... the finances for the wastewater fund were pretty much down to zero before the SRF money came in. Face it ... had construction not started, the new board still wouldn't have the money to do what they've promised. We still would have been fined and CDOs still would be coming down the pike.; 12:16 PM, March 31, 2006
Anonymous said...: How about this theory shark?......
The property owners didn't give a damn how much TRI-W was going to cost cause they were going to pass the TRI-W costs onto their renters. You're right shark. Fuck the renters. The "renters" don't own property. They just live here. And where do the property owners live? The property owners live off their renters.
That's where they live. Why don't we just put an initiative on the ballot denying the "renters" their right to vote.
That will fix everything.; 8:49 PM, April 01, 2006
Shark Inlet said...: I gather that your attitude is that the renters should have the right to raise the costs of property owners.

This is a sticky issue. Once lawsuits and other stalling tactics were adopted by Julie, Bud and friends the costs started going up for all of us. The recent recall was essentially a way for those opposed to TriW to take over, in part by telling renters that they would lower the bills. (The recall candidates had a flyer that told voters they would cut bills in half.)

Renters have a right to vote on who is a CSD boardmember. Property owners have a right to vote on any assessments.; 9:52 PM, April 01, 2006
Anonymous said...: got it. renters and all registered voters have the right to vote for the elected officials who represent them. thank you. the mistake the former solutions group/save the dream/taxpayer watch/stop yet another project by dissolving our Government pandora,stan,richard,gordon CSD made was NOT developing a project that the renters AND registered voters AND the property owners could get behind and support. Instead, the former and now RECALLED CSD, developed a project that, by your admission, ONLY the property owners supported. Mistake? Yes. BIG MISTAKE. In 1998, they lurered us ALL(property owners and renters and registered voters) AWAY from a project the County was all set to build us ALL by PROMISING us cheaper, better, faster. A big fat lie. six to seven years later, they push forward, against the will of 51% of the community, a energy guzzling sludge factory next to the library for $205/month. Not cheaper, not better, not faster. What they "planned" for us was the highest per capita sewer in the history of the universe. whose idea was this? the idea belonged to Montgomery Watson's wallet. a construction management firm that specializes in designing sludge factories. You know.....the company that had the mysterious burglary where computers, containing who knows what documentation, were stolen right after the recall election...............HHHHHHHMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
I wonder why they decided to go with the most expensive possible site and plan for our community? I wonder?
Is developing a project that at least half your community is outspokenly against ever a good idea? What little respect the former CSD showed for their constituentes. We the people of Los Osos voted against the TRI-W project. I wonder why the former Solutions Group/Taxpayers Watch CSD was RECALLED IN DISGRACE? maybe it was the part where they started the project that we voted against twenty days before the election......HHHHMMMMMMMMMM maybe it was that first really, feally, really bad lie that they told all of us.......or, maybe it was the two or three thousand mistakes they made inbetween..........all of the above? yes.; 11:41 PM, April 01, 2006
Churadogs said...: Inlet said: "You are the one who told us the RFP would allow us to study all the options including TriW ... then you told us that the RFP would study all options except for TriW ... now you are telling me that it is okay with you that Ripley will study only one or two options. Don't you feel somewhat lied to?"

No, that's not what I "told you". Tri W doesn't need "studying. It's a given, right down to the last nut and bolt.The only thing left to add in are the O&M&R and "defered" costs, i.e. importing state water & etc. As for "studying all options" right now the CSD is negotiating the scope of what will be "studied," by Ripley so it's too soon to tell just WHAT's going to be looked at. What I have further said is Because of time and money restrictions,it's too late for the "let's look at everything" option.; 7:30 AM, April 02, 2006
Anonymous said...: Wrong again Ann,

Why is it too late for the "let's look at everything option"?? If it's too late, then it's too late to look at anything period. Whose time?? Whose money?? All that has to be done is ask the property owners if they are willing to pay for the time and money to look at all the options. Are they being asked?? Remember Ann, you wanted to look at all the options. So why not put your money where your mouth is, and give the property owners the option?

Oh, now you don't want to give them that option?? Why, becase of CDOs that apparently you never thought (or maybe you didn't understand) could happen. But of course, that's another thing you want to deflect blame for. It's sad, but I'm sure you feel no responsibility for CDOs occuring.

Tri-W does need studying, btw, because there is NO project right now, so where a decision needs to be made, ALL FEASIBLE options should be included, and Tri-W by any definition is feasible.

Why do you insist there's no time. A new project will take 5-10 years. What's wrong with an extra 2-3 months to look at all options - have you lost all reasoning?

Please tell your readers exactly how much time is appropriate and exactly how much money is appropriate to spend for this. You are the one that said there's not enough time or money - so obviously you know exactly how much time and how much money is left. Share your time schedule with the world, because your knowledge of all aspects of this project is gospel to many.; 9:16 AM, April 02, 2006
Shark Inlet said...: Anonymous,

I did not admmit that only property owners supported TriW. Perhaps I was unclear, perhaps you don't read well ... perhaps you were simply trying to twist my words. What I said (and continue to say) is that the rate of support for TriW is far higher in the property owner group than in the renter group. [Furthermore, much much higher in the group who owns undeveloped property that the would like to put a home on.]

I think it makes sense that many of the renters would vote for the recall because they were told (by those running for the recall seats) that the recall would lower the sewer bill. This appears to have been hopeful campaign rhetoric at best, but that is what they were told.

The rest of us were told the same thing, but homeowners are vested in the community and essentially rejected the hopefully thinking. Renters, not as vested in the community, could always move out if things get too expensive.

No, of course Ann will say that this is all speculation without a poll to confirm. I would agree but suggest it is reasonable speculation. I would argue that the CSD ought to take a poll right after the Ripley study is concluded ... asking citizens whether they prefer TriW and its cost/benefit package or whatever the other option is with its cost/benefit package.

Anonymous, if you are complaining now about broken promises by the solutions group I wonder what you'll be saying in a year or two or three when you recall the campaign promise of the recall candidates ... $100/month.; 10:35 AM, April 02, 2006
Shark Inlet said...: Ann,

I don't have the time now to go back through all your comments from Fall 2005 to verify that you told us the new board would study all the options available and when I asked about TriW you told us that they would hire an engineering firm to check out everything, even the (as you call them) hidden costs in TriW.

Because I don't have the time, I'll retract the statement that you told us this. I'll say that such a study, which compares everything under the sun is what would be reasonable. If, for some reason, all that needs to be added in to the TriW plan is all those O&M and other costs, fine, it should be cheap to do. If this board refuses to do that it will look like they're trying to keep a TriW plant from happening without even determining whether it is the best or not ... the very thing that many TriW foes accuse the past board of doing.

Let me suggest two things that should help any discussion of these cost issues.

First, state water and saltwater intrusion are going to have to be delt with whatever WWTF is put in at whatever location it ends up. Unfortunately the costs of state water will likely be involved whatever plant is put in. Folks are not more or less likely to conserve water with one plant than the other. Saltwater intrusion is something that we can't fully deal with by choice of WWTF ... perhpas it can be partially delt with by choice of disposal location. Broderson would help somemwhat with saltwater intrusion. Nothing I've heard from the new board would seem even an attempt to address the question.

Second, if a new WWTF and collection system is designed, we'll have to pay for those costs (maybe $10M or so, about $15 per household for some 20 years ... or a onetime payment of $2000). Also, we cannot forget the costs associated with any delays. Suppose that the new plant takes some 5 years to start and that construction costs have an 8% per year inflation rate ... a $120M plant and collection system would then run $176M. What appeared to be far cheaper is all of a sudden, far more expensive because of the delay.

Essentially, the plant and collection system would have to clock in at less than $90M total or less today (assuming 5 years until the start of construction) to be "cheaper" than the $135M TriW collection system and WWTF.

Another cost associated with delay is the additional costs due to pumping. Unless the RWQCB backs off entirely (and this I doubt), any costs of pumping should be added to the cost of any plant. At $200/month for the additional 5 years delay until the "alternative" plant comes online, that would be an extra $12000 per property that each of us pay. If we start to talk about biweekly pumping which happens after Jan 2010 it gets far worse.

By the way, we've got some 365 million gallons of partially treated sewage heading into our groundwater every year we delay. The total volume is about the same as the length of a football field (including end zones), then again just as high and wide. Ugh! That is something I find unacceptable?

There is no justification for this board's actions in stopping TriW without considering these costs. Even if the previous board hadn't started the construction, the costs associated with moving from TriW to another location are far too high ... and that's without even considering the SRF issue.

Ugh!; 11:10 AM, April 02, 2006
Anonymous said...: WOW Shark,

Your words speak for themselves. I have no need to twist them at all. Your doing a fantastic job revealing your twisted point of view all by yourself.
I'll just quote you........

"but homeowners are vested in the community and essentially rejected the hopefully thinking. Renters, not as vested in the community, could always move out if things get too expensive."

So, what you're saying is that the many families who can't afford to own property and have raised their children here, the families who send their children to our schools, the families who shop in our stores and eat at our restaurants and pour hundreds of thousands of dollars into our local economy are not "VESTED" in our community? How about the senoirs who rent and/or own property and are living on fixed incomes? Are you saying that these people, whom the property owners live off of like scabbing parasites, are not "VESTED" in their community? Shark, are you saying that you are not "Vested" in them? How sad for you. I know our local mom&pop small business owners are "VESTED" in them. Seems to me, what you are quite clearly saying, without twisting your words at all, is that if they can't afford $205/month for TRI-W(the highest per capita sewer in the history of the universe)then they can......
your words coming up.......
"move out if things get too expensive."
How is creating a project that will destroy the lives of half the people who live here by causing them to MOVE OUT OF TOWN being "VESTED" in your community? How is committing economic genocide on your non-property owner friends and neighbors being "VESTED" in your community?
Isn't this just a very sugarcoated way of saying that "after we build TRI-W, the RIFF-RAFF will have to GET THE HELL OUT OF MY TOWN"!!
Come to think of it...........What does owning property have to do with being "vested" in your community?
Really Shark, if this is what you believe then you are one sick and twisted motherfucker.
If you own property you are "VESTED" in YOURSELF. It's very apparent that it is YOURSELF, Shark Inlet, that you really care about.......like i said in a previous post, the property/vacant lot owners didn't give a shit about the cost because they were just going to pass the cost onto the renters/buyers.
It was a "Fuck the Community, I'll get mine" plan.

As for as the $100 a month, I followed the recall campaign very closely. I NEVER remember any candidate saying anything about $100/month. Prehaps you can provide me with a hard copy of the quote or documentation where a recall candidate said their project would cost $100/month. I'd love to see it. If one of the recall candidates did make such a statement, I think is was a mistake. I know John, Chuck, and Steve and I'm sorry but I just can't picture them promising anybody $100/month.
What I'm am saying is, believe it or not, I do have campaign literature from the 1998 Solutions Group campaign where they PROMISED EVERYONE(renters, registered voters AND property owners) "CHEAPER, BETTER, FASTER".
I have the documentation and I'd love to show it to you Shark. But, you know what I'm taking about don't you. And, you don't even deny it......do you. I'm not just making stuff up like $100/month. Am I.
WHAT I AM SAYING IS, if we as a community hadn't of bought that LIE, WE WOULD ALREADY BE HOOKED UP AND BE PAYING LESS THAN $100/month!!!!!!!
I'm sorry.
I will never believe, listen to, or trust anything these people say or do ever again.

We don't know yet what our new CSD's project is going to cost. I do know this.......
the Solutions Group/Dreamer/Taxpayer Watch people are scared shitless that it will be LESS expensive than TRI-W.
Let's not forget the O&M costs over 30/50/75 years of a pond or an onsite system vs. an energy guzzling sludge factory in the middle of our town........
How fucking embarrassing would it be if our new CSD developed a project over time that would cost less than TRI-W. The Solutions Group and Pandora, Stan, Richard, Gordon and their minority obstructionist group just can't handle the magnitude of how stupid this would make them look so they are doing everything in their power to see to it that our newly elected CSD fails.
What a sad, pathetic, egocentrically motivated group the Solutions Group/Taxpayers Watch is.
"Vested" in your community?........HAAAAAAA!!!!!
But, in 50 years, you'll probably be dead and you don't really give a shit about the future generations of our community, do you Shark Inlet.
No you won't be here anymore so why would you give a shit about something like that?; 3:01 PM, April 02, 2006
Shark Inlet said...: At the CVVC website they have a pdf file http://www.locvvc.com/pdf/Alternative%20to%20alternatives.pdf is where you can find the promise that "the alternative plan will cost us less than $100 per month." I guess that you are right in one regard ... they didn't promise to build a project that would save us money. They just told us that they could do so.

This flyer is also where they promise us that Measure B will protect us from fines.

You try to spin my statment of facts to mean that I don't care about poor folks. That was neither accurate nor fair. My main reason for opposing the recall, for opposing Measure B and for supporting the TriW plan is that it, while horribly expensive, is far less expensive than whatever alternative this new group will give us.

I resent that this current board has made choices which will force people I know to have to move out of my town, choices that you appear to agree with. I can't, for the life of me, see how you can support, without serious consideration of the financial consequences the actions of this board.

My statement that you were trying to twist out of context was pretty simple ... folks who are renters can move out of town if their costs go up. Certainly current homeowners who face much higher bills (due to the choices of this board) cannot as easily up and move out of town. If they were to choose to do so, they might even take a huge financial hit to attempt to sell their homes in today's market.

If you want to believe you are an advocate for the common man, fine. Just don't tell us that you care about their bills because your lack of ability or interest in discussing the actual costs of this recall reveals that you don't really care about the bills others will have to pay.; 4:00 PM, April 02, 2006
Anonymous said...: Now Shark,

Allow me to pick apart the arguement you make with Ann........

First, people will use less water if we implement a "rate schedule" that rewards conservation and penalizes over use. Example, I have a friend. She owns a home and lives alone. She showed me her water bill. She is using 4-6 clicks of water every other month. As you can see, she is not a wasteful person. If she wanted to, she could be using almost twice as much water as she is now AND NOT HAVE TO PAY FOR IT. Other than the fact that she is an honest decent person, what is her motivation to conserve water. She has none. We need a new rate schedule that rewards conservation and punishes over use. That would be a serious component of any water conservation plan regardless of the WWTF.

Second, I'm sorry Shark, your TRI-W fantasy is over. Who says the County will build there?????? I'm waiting????????? Monterey Mechanical was the only bidder on the project. If you were Monterey Mech and the County invited you back to build the project would you do it with full knowledge of all the contention and dissension over TRI-W? FUCK NO YOU WOULDN'T. If I was Monterey Mechanical, I would stay as far the fuck away from Los Osos as I could. On the other hand, if a project went up for bid that the community had actually already voted on that was actually over time cheaper than the TRI-W Project and say you were a firm that constructed ponding systems(something totally different than TRI-W, something that makes sense that we should of had 30 years ago) that might be a very attractive project to bid on.....

Third, tack on the cost of pumping? You've got to be kidding me, right?
WOW, I forgot what a serious Bullshit spin artist you are.....I forgot about your narcissism and your sophistry.....
I forgot that just because you write something you believe that everyone will think it's true.....
Has anybody had to pump yet? NO!!!
Memo to Shark Inlet......WE SEE THRU YOUR BULLSHIT SPIN. IT'S SO OBVIOUS AND TRANSPARENT THAT IT DOESN'T PASS THE LAUGH TEST.....
Anyway, this sounds an aweful lot like the LIE(the solutions group lie? big surprize) the solutions group/dissolvers are telling people.....that if we disslove the CSD the CDOs will go away......WRONG!!! The RWQCB is on record that the CDOs are a completely separate issue, CSD or NO CSD......

Forth, I've taken a very close interest in the CDOs the RWQCB wants to impose. What makes you "seriously doubt" they will back off these? When they realize how fucked up their CDO plan is from top to bottom they will back off these CDOs so fast heads will spin. This was not thought out very well on their part at all and it was obvious at their Februray workshop that they had no idea what they were doing. 30-35 of the first 45 are now very organized. The RWQCB has a choice. Back of the CDOs and come up with a reasonable plan like supporting the CSD's water conservation/septic management plan in prelude to a wastewater project OR they can be completely embarrassed in a court of law and lose what little creditability they have left. The CDOs are a joke. If this winds up in court the RWQCB is going to lose and they will lose HUGE!
What makes you "seriously doubt" the RWQCB will back off the CDOs is that you want this LIE, you need this LIE, you need it to propagate you dissolution movement and your campaign of fear...........
By the way, the ponding treatment portion(instead of an energy guzzling sludge factory like you want) of an out of town project costs about 14m not 120M, if I'm recalling right from a presentation that was made last year at the community center by a firm that builds them. Whatever the cost, I know the construction and O&M costs of ponding systems are much much cheaper than the full blown sludge factory that you wanted to ram into the center of our town. I see you completely ignored this type of facility in your cost compairson above. You also ignored my statement regarding the O&M costs over time.
HHHHHMMMMMM a curious omission.
I guess you're basiclly admititng that an out of town ponding system would be much cheaper than TRI-W. Another cost that you are refusing to consider is the 15% administrative fees that will be tacked on to the cost of ANY project over time if the County takes over. And guess what else? FIRE SERVICE, WATER SERVICE, GARBAGE SERVICE WILL ALL COST MORE IF THE COUNTY TAKES OVER!!!!!! Did you put these numbers in your calculator?
Your facts and numbers are a joke. A ponding system will be MUCH cheaper than TRI-W. Not having to pay the County's mark-up for Water Service, Fire Service, and Garbage will save this community millions over time......
But don't worry Shark. I copied your post so we can all laugh at it when we finally have a project that is cheaper than TRI-W, better than TRI-W, a more environmentally sensitive project outside our town so all these people that you hate don't have to move.
I must admit that your twisted spin on things is quite entertaining. I'm really laughing at your suggestion that the CSD should ask Ripley to "take a poll" on the cost/benefit of the TRI-W project......what a laugh riot you are Shark.....we had that "poll" on September 27.
WE SAID NO TO TRI-W.
BYE BYE TRI-W.
BYE BYE........; 5:18 PM, April 02, 2006
Shark Inlet said...: Um ... a rate schedule could be implimented whether we build at TriW or elsewhere. Duh!

You suggest that Monterey and Barnard would not enter a contract with the LOCSD. You are probably right. Probably no other wise contractor would either. The CSD board's decision to stop construction was probably the single thing that has hurt our community the most. Do you think that any contractor will be happy to bid to build any project for the CSD? I suspect that they will factor past history into their bids and we will have to pay more than we would otherwise. Perhaps the County could do better?

I guess you have a problem with me discussing pumping costs (yet you don't tell us what the problem is, you just tell us that because no one has had to pump yet, my comment is just "[explitive delted] spin"). If we end up having to pump, those costs will need to be factored into any plan to fairly compare what we, the people, are paying for any given plan. Are you so naive as to believe only the costs to the CSD should be counted and that the real bills that real people have to pay don't count?

Um ... as to your $14M ponding system ... you forgot to include the cost of the collection and disposal systems. Julie told us that STEP wouldn't save any money over gravity and the Gravity costs were about $70M ... that's perhaps $55M if you figure in bids 30% too high. As to your $14M ponding system, I don't believe it will be approved by the RWQCB, but I don't know for sure. I do know that they refused to approve one in the very recent past because they say there isn't a proven track record of removing Nitrates. Does your system have the track record they require? No matter what, the collection and discharge systems will drive up your $14M system considerably. Even if O&M can be reduced by $10/month with out of town ponding, it doesn't make it a good idea to spend $70/month extra to save that $10.

How about we study all the options and figure out which is best?

Why refuse to study TriW if TriW may actually be the least expensive option? Are you afraid of what the study may reveal?

As to whether the community refused TriW on Sep 27 ... your side did not have a mandate by any stretch. If you asked people today, what would they want? You think you know the answer, but if you do know what people want, again, why be afraid of asking them?

Are you opposed to real democracy? Are you afraid that Measure B specifies that all options studied must be given to us to vote on? Are you afraid that TriW actually will be the best?; 6:29 PM, April 02, 2006
Shark Inlet said...: By the way ... you neglected to mention the $100/month. Yes, it was a mistake to make that promise ... essentially to lie during the campaign.; 6:32 PM, April 02, 2006
Anonymous said...: ready for more of Sharks deception and misleading Bullshit spin.......

here we go........

No, I wasn't suggesting that "Monterey and Barnard would not enter into a contract with the LOCSD"...isn't it interesting how Shark likes to intensionally misinterpret what others suggest so Shark can make false statements that support the misinformation and lies that are spewing out of Shark's pie hole?

from the movie "The Exorcist".......

"...what is expecially important is the warning to avoid conversations with the Demon. We may ask what is relevant but anything beyond that is dangerous.
He is a lier. The Demon is a lier. He will like to confuse us. But, he will also mix lies with the truth to attack us. The attack is psychological but very powerful. So, don't listen. DO NOT LISTEN!.......
Father Karras; "I think it might be helpful if I give you some background on the different personalities Regan has manifested. So far, I would say there is three. She is convinced..."
The Exorcist interrupting; "THERE IS ONLY ONE!!"

I know you're a good person Shark. Perhaps you're just possessed by the Devil. Should we call you a Priest?

Let me actually quote myself to fend off Shark's futile and evil attempt at more Bullshit spin....
What I said was "If you were Monterey Mech and the County invited you back to build the project, would you do it with full knowledge of all the contention and dissension over TRI-W? FUCK NO. If I was Monterey Mechanical, I would stay as far the fuck away from Los Osos as I could."
I wasn't suggesting anything. What I was saying is that I seriously doubt that the folks at Monterey and Barnard are stupid enough to restart work on a project that the Los Osos community does not support, protested against and has already voted down!!!! If the folks at Monterey & Barnard have any brains at all they will stay away from Los Osos and the TRI-W project like the plague. I don't care who is asking them to do it. If I was the CEO of Monterey Mechanical and I got a phone call from the County asking me to restart the TRI-W Project, I would laugh in their face. Then, I'd hang up the phone.

I have no problem with you at all on discussing the pumping costs and the CDOs. BRING IT!!!
I'll talk with you all day long about these. The Waterboards, both the SWRCB and the RWQCB are rogue Governemt bureaucracies with little or no oversight who are use to rolling over on communities that put up little or no fight. These CDOs are a blessing in disguise. They will expose the RWQCB for their ineptitude and lack of scientific knowledge regarding the implementation of regulating water quality policy. These CDOs are illconceived and a complete joke and I personally can't wait for this case to hit the court room. Unfortunately, when the RWQCB realizes what a HUGE PILE OF CRAP they stepped in with this CDO action, I'm afraid they with back-off and with your encouragement and help, try to come up with another way to fuck-over our town.

I'm not sure where your getting your numbers from? Is it your ass perhaps? I was going to take Ann's advise and take your "facts" into consideration with a grain of salt, but your SPIN is not even worth a molecule of salt. You said your Sludge factory would cost 176M with the inflation rate. The proposed cost of the ponding system presented by the firm from Canada last year cost 14M. When I think of your $176M wastewater treatment "plant", I think of concrete and steel and the energy guzzling machinery required to produce disgusting sludge that gets hauled out of town on trucks that get 3 miles to the gallon.....what a fucking nightmare....When I think of TRI-W, I think of a "sludge factory" not a stones throw away from the Morro Bay Estuary.
When I think of a "ponding system", I think of a hole in the ground with dirt. Less expensive to construct? HELL YES, LESS EXPENSIVE. I don't think of sludge trucks running thru the middle of our town at 3 miles to the gallon. I don't think of energy guzzling machinery. I think of microbiology that decomposes our afluent thru a natural and environmental proccess. I think of two or three maintenance workers...not 8-10-15 not including the sludge trucks that your "sludge factory" would require. I'm sure the guy from Canada is a serious business man. I'm sure that he was well aware of our situation here in Los Osos. I'm sure he wasn't LIED TO LIKE MONTEREY AND BARNARD WERE BY THE FORMER RECALLED CSD BOARD, WHEN THEY WERE TOLD THAT THE PEOPLE PROTESTING TRI-W WERE A VERY SMALL GROUP OF OBSTRUCTIONIST........JUST A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE WHO SHOW UP TO THE CSD MEETINGS AND THAT THESE PEOPLE WERE A VERY SMALL GROUP NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF OUR COMMUNITY .....boy, I bet Monterey and Barnard's assholes are still sore from that LIE. Anyway, I'm sure the guy from Canada is a serious and intelligent business man and that he didn't fly all the way down here from Canada to give us all a slide show. I'm sure he knows that his company can and would be seriously interested in constructiing a wastewater treatment ponding system that would meet the requirements of the RWQCB, as other ponding systems just like this one have been built in the State of California. Regarding the costs, I'm not about to start taking out of my asshole like you Shark Inlet. So I'll use the 14m figure that was given at the ponding presentation at the community center last year. I'll compare that to "your" 176M figure for your "sludge factory". Sure, turning the pipes out of town will cost more than the TRI-W collection system. I think the figure you pulled out of your ass was 70M for an out of town collection system. 14m + 70m = 84M. 84M < 176M. These are your numbers, not mine.

Are you guys ready for another ASS NUMBER direct from Sharks asshole?

"Even if O&M can be reduced by $10/month with out of town ponding, it doesn't make it a good idea to spend $70/month extra to save that $10."
Really Shark? Give me a fucking break. I was born at night. Not, last night...........
Where did you get this $10 a month figure? How far up your ass did you have to reach to get that number? It doesn't take an economist to figure that the O&M costs of a pond will probably save us each a lot more than $10 a month. Besides, I'd like to think that the people of Los Osos are a lot less interested in raping and pillaging our natural resourses(the gasoline and energy required to operate your sludge factory) than you are Shark.
The study revealed that the low end of TRI-W was going to cost us $205 a month.
What are you going to say when one if not all the options on our CSD ballot in November are equal to or less expensive than TRI-W?
You are fighting against it cause you will of been made to look the "fool". Taxpayers watch IS fighting against the CSD cause if the CSD produces a project that is less expensive than TRI-W, they will all look like a bunch of fucking idiots that did nothing for 8 years but fuck-over our community. This is why they are working with the RWQCB to fight our CSD and fight the people of Los Osos. You are failing yourself and your community. Shame on you.

As for the "mandate", and believe it or not, I'm a registered Republician(actually a Libertarian)in the 2000 Presidential Election, Al Gore received over 500,000 more popular votes than GW Bush. Bush won the election on electorial votes when the Supreme Court handed him the State of Florida. But, Al Gore actually received more votes than GW Bush. So, are you saying that Al Gore should of been elected President because GW Bush didn't have a "mandate". Fuck no. That's not the way we do things in America. Al Gore and the Democrats did legally question the processes that took place regarding the election but, I don't recall Al Gore trying to legally over throw the President of the United States because he lost a close election and because he disagreeed GW's political philosophy. Did Al Gore believe that GW Bush deserved to be President. Hell No. But, like a Man, after the last vote was counted, he set aside his own personal agenda and supported the Presidency and a President that fewer Americans voted for. Why? BECAUSE IT'S WHAT WAS BEST FOR THE COUNTRY!!!!!!!!
Its really too bad the ASSHOLE DREAMERS COULDN'T TAKE A LESSON FROM AL GORE. Our Community would be better for it and we would be well on our way to a wastewater project. The power that has been given to the RWQCB is a direct result of the DIVISIVENESS and DIVISION in our community that has been created by the ASSHOLE DREAMERS/TAXPAYER WATCH who refuse to set aside their own personal agenda and refuse to work with the Community's newly elected Government on a interim water conservation/septic management system in prelude to a wastewater project the Community will vote for and support.
If we stood together as a Community behind our CSD, the RWQCB would be forced to work with us on a resonable plan.
And, let's be honest, if measure b had lost by 20 votes and I tried to use your "mandate" arguement against you.......you would laugh in my face, wouldn't you. And, I do recall people from our side before the election, going to the podium saying we would respect the results of the election.
Unfortunately the people from your side have no such dignity, honor, or class.
Sucks to be you...........; 10:34 PM, April 02, 2006
Anonymous said...: By the way....like I said before, like everyone in this community on the fence who received CDOs is starting to research and realize.....If the Solutions Group, these people that you support, hadn't LIED to all of us in 1998 by promising us Cheaper, Better, Faster......We would all be hooked up right now and be paying less than $100/month. Wouldn't we. It was a huge mistake to believe that LIE, wasn't it.; 10:41 PM, April 02, 2006
Shark Inlet said...: For our anonymous friend ... I don't have time to reply to all of what you write (boy there is a lot!).

About the $10/month savings on O&M&R ... the figure is from Lisa. Remember the presentation she gave following the failure of the "negotiations". The claim was that we would save $600k/year on O&M&R with a ponding system that was out of town. $600k/year, when translated to $/month for each of 5000 households ends up being exactly ... $10.

About the $100/month claim by our new LOCSD directors. When I called you on your "As for as the $100 a month, I followed the recall campaign very closely. I NEVER remember any candidate saying anything about $100/month. Prehaps you can provide me with a hard copy of the quote or documentation where a recall candidate said their project would cost $100/month. I'd love to see it. If one of the recall candidates did make such a statement, I think is was a mistake. I know John, Chuck, and Steve and I'm sorry but I just can't picture them promising anybody $100/month." statement your best response is something like "well, it is still Pandora's fault."

Okay, suppose that Pandora screwed up in many ways. Does that make it ethical for John, Steve and Chuck to run on a campaign promise that they cannot hope to keep? Not by a long. I guess we do agree on one thing, it was a huge mistake to lie during the campaign.

As to the other issues you raise ... again, am too busy now to discuss them, but perhaps later. I can say, though, that I am growing tired of your rude spirit. If you were to treat me (and others you disagree with) with the sort of respect that all people deserve, I would be far more likely to go out of my way to make time.; 11:16 PM, April 02, 2006
Churadogs said...: Shark Inlet said,"No, of course Ann will say that this is all speculation without a poll to confirm. I would agree but suggest it is reasonable speculation. I would argue that the CSD ought to take a poll right after the Ripley study is concluded ... asking citizens whether they prefer TriW and its cost/benefit package or whatever the other option is with its cost/benefit package."

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the scope of what's going to be looked at is now under negotiation. When it's decided, Ripley Pacific will start "looking" At the end of evaluating various options, they should be able to come back with 2? 3? systems and 2? 3? sites? hopefully with full costs (which can then be compared on the face of it with TriW which is a given) which will then go before the public for presentation/workshops, whatever, then the wastewater & finance committes will take a look-see and make their recoommendations, back to the board and public for input, etc. then it's supposed to go out for a vote and from that vote, the option gettng the most votes will determine which system the community wants to "buy," and then it'll have to go back out for a Prop 218 type vote for assessment $$$ followed by permit hearings, planning, lawsuits etc.etc.etc. followed by RFPs to hire an engineering firm to actually build the thing etc.so, so as far as I can see, there isn't a need for a "poll." The "poll" will be the selection vote authorized under Measure B. Unless, of course, Measure B is gone by then. In which case, I suppose the CSD could decide to set an election and Prop 218-type vote anyway? If the CSD is dissolved somewhere along this point, (before Ripley completes his work and the community gets to vote) the citizens won't get any choice or vote as far as I can tell, unless the BoS ordered an election? That's another unkown that LAFCO would have to sort out??; 8:36 AM, April 03, 2006
Shark Inlet said...: I think there is a need for a poll.

How about a poll with one simple question: "If a WWTF at the TriW site would result in lower total bills to you as a PZ resident, would you support building there?"

Maybe a follow-up question to determine how much more people are willing to pay to avoid building at TriW would be nice as well. Something like "How much more would you be willing to pay per month to have a WWTF somewhere other than at TriW?" If folks are given options of "no more", "$10/month more", "$25/month more", "$50/month more", "$100/month more" and "Any amount would be worth it to move the plant from TriW" would suffice.

Why would a poll tell us anything that the election didn't tell us?

Well, the election was clouded with many other issues like the personalities of Stan and Richard. Furthermore, none of the measures B, C, D or E actually addressed the question of TriW or not. They all came close, but if you look at the wording of the questions, TriW is never mentioned.

Second, during the election, we had the recall and Measure B campaigns telling us that moving the sewer would save money. This is far from evident and if some people were voting for the recall and for Measure B were voting that way because they thought they were voting for lower bills, they might appreciate the opportunity in a poll now to add the thought "but not if it will raise my bills" to their earlier vote.

Third, now that we know a bit more about the costs associated with moving the sewer (like fines, CDOs, loss of the SRF, etc.) some people might have changed their minds. I suspect a lot.

Last ... and perhaps most importantly ... some people would be willing to pay more to put the plant out of town, but not $100/month more. Those people should have the opportunity to spell out how much more they think it is worth to them.

The reason such a poll should be done now ... today ... before any contract with Ripley is signed and before the TriW site is sold ... is that if the people say they would prefer TriW if cheaper, the spirit behind Measure B says that this is an option that must be given to them. Measure B requires all studied sites be on the ballot so that even we who are not part of CCLO, LOTA and LOTTF are allowed to have input. If TriW is not re-studied, we won't be given the option of choosing what might well be the least expensive option if it is, indeed, TriW.

Simply put, spend as much as is necessary on the engineering study so that we know all the options and all of their real costs before we make a decision. Re-studying TriW really shouldn't take all that much money ... as you point out, all the costs are pretty well known, Ripley would just need to go over them to make sure they are reasonable and that O&M is included.

I presume the contract with Ripley will include cost projections adjusted for delay related inflation and the interest rate. To do otherwise is to stack the deck in favor of one project over another.

If this board doesn't do a thorough review, they will be charged with doing something much like they accused the previous board of doing ... not studying all the options thoroughly enough before making a decision that ignored key facts.

One more thing ... considering the state of lawsuits in the district, I wonder whether a 218 vote would need to be held to raise enough money to pay Ripley in the 1st place.; 12:50 PM, April 03, 2006
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: Somewhat off topic, but why does ANYONE think that stinky ponds at the portal to Los Osos is such a great thing?

This isn't going to be Provence, France, where the scent of lavendar greets the incoming traveler, that's for sure....

Los Osos, Valley Of The ...Smells

"Oh-h-h-hh... smell that? We must be gettin' close to Sewerville now Dad!"

We could replace the bear statues with giant poop statues! Hey, we could finance the CSD lawyer debt by selling pressed manure blocks as souviners!

Sheesh... and I thought the propery values had tanked now...; 10:35 AM, April 04, 2006
Shark Inlet said...: Reminder ... no one feed the trolls.; 7:50 AM, April 05, 2006
Anonymous said...: Yeah Inlet, I wish you'd starve out...; 5:22 PM, April 06, 2006

Pages

Tuesday, March 28, 2006

41 comments: