Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Independent Peer-Review Report of Ripley [Sewer] Plan/Update/Whatever To Be Presented At CSD Meeting, Thursday, Dec 7 at 8 pm. (posted for 8 pm. on the CSD's front window, The Board will be in closed session before that so that may account for the delay) at the Los Osos Community Center, Los Osos. Hope you'll all be there. Take notes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
24 comments:
For those of use who just stopped by the CSD's website but didn't find the information that you seem to have ...
Ann,
Who is the independent reviewer of the sewer plan? What contact (if any) have they had with the LOCSD board and staffers?
Dear Shark,
I would be happy to forward mine that I received in my email. It is 14 pages and it is more of an outline than an actual report. It's a good read and I would HIGHLY encourage those that are interested to get your hands on a copy and be there tomorrow night for review. It raises more questions than it answers but the one aspect of it that I really appreciated was that it noted that compliance of the law was utmost and primary and that a prop 218 vote must pass to keep the process moving towards an outcome. If you want to email me, I'll send it in a reply.
mariakelly@charter.net
I look forward to the discussion.
Sincerely,
Maria M. Kelly
Maria, I would very much like a copy too if it's not too much trouble, just click on my name for the email contact.
Thanks.
Mike,
If only you were my biggest trouble!(wink)
Enjoy!
Sincerely,
Maria
Maria. Thanks!
I dont know what your biggest trouble could be, but if you wanted me to be it,
I'm afraid I couldn't measure up, Im a lousy troublemaker( wink wink )
A VERY interesting read by the way, I couldn't help but notice that almost every concern of the report has been gone over time and again on this blog.
They coulda had it for free!
Dear Mike,
My husband noted that many of the issues had been addressed and evaluated and paid for in MWH reports as well. I suppose, as they say, it is always good to have a second opinion. Unfortunately, we don't have the time or the money but some people need more convincing then others. Meanwhile, the childhood game, "What time is it Mr.Fox" keeps popping into my head. How many times are we going to get chased back to the start line when "he" yells "midnight" before we tag him!
Sincerely,
Maria M. Kelly
Maria, I have no clue what '"What time is it Mr.Fox" means.
I AM ignorant.
Oh crap, off to google......
I did notice your husband over the shoulder, shall we say. and a whole lot less winking, Don't worry, Im honorable!
honest!
OK, I googled the game. Please don't anyone tell spectator about it.
I'm still getting spam from New Guinea
!
You too? I'm still waiting for the money they promised to send me after I helped them cash their check.
Here's my take on the document (thanks Maria!):
1 - cost and speed are paramount
2 - out of town makes a lot of sense
3 - no one really knows what Los Osos residents prefer because we've not been given a fair comparison of the costs of each plan
They also openly question why the RWQCB 2010 deadline ... perhaps they were not told that the LOCSD assured the RWQCB that the LOCSD could get a plant built out of town by 2010.
While they gave a nod to "out of town" because TriW has been controversial, they didn't really address the fact that there will be huge additional costs associated with the new site. Design, permitting and legal costs will likely run upwards of an additional $25-30M. Then inflation on whatever design we adopt will add to the costs.
Essentially the estimated costs of construction must be less than $100M (if we started construction today) for out of town to be in the same ballpark as TriW ... and even then we would have to get lucky with no lawsuits and the design sailing through various regulatory agencies.
Sounds like a pretty fair analysis to me ... I just wish they had emphasized the cost issues a bit more rather than just the technical feasibility of each option.
Hi Sharkinlet,
My read of the report matches yours. A nice report; but no new information.
Additionally, the report did not address the conceptual viability of the Ripley plan, or even if it would be less expensive.
At this point in time, Los Osos would be best served having a property owner a vote offering a choice: Tri-W project at cost "A" within a given time frame, or Out-of-town project at cost "B" at another time frame.
Regards, Richard LeGros
PS: FYI - The Federal Bankruptcy Court has just appointed me to the Creditors Committee. This will be interesting.
Congratulations Mr. LeGros - I suddenly feel a whole lot better on how this bankruptcy will play out! Thank you!
On the Peer Review note, I found it interesting that they found that "…careful attention must be devoted to the minimization of odors." This was on pg. 3, the third point in the Guiding Principles section. So even if out of town, money will have to be spent to mitigate the stink. This will cost money. Ripley addressed that at his presentation meeting to say - you chose what you want to do to address this - the cost will go up.
The report also stated in the Treatment Plant Site section that if an out of town site was used, a return line for recycled water should be considered in the initial phase. I recall Ripley's plan put that part in the later if you want to pay for it, Phase 2, for cost reasons. Then in the next section, Treatment Technologies, it states that "…reuse options could be added at a later date (phase) to return water for in-town landscape irrigation…" Again, cost.
We had better be sure we know just what is being given to us to vote on.
I'll repost the more verbose announcement you posted to SewerWatch earlier today as well as my congratulations. And my query:
Richard > PS FYI- I am happy that will be helping the Los Osos CSD resolve it's financial difficulties as I have just been appointed to serve on the Federal Bankruptcy Court Creditors Committee.
Uh, congratulations. I guess.
May I ask what those responsibilities might be? It sounds both important and interesting. As you put it, I truly do hope it helps to serve the CSD and the people of Los Osos. And I can only presume you are an appropriate person to fill this role. But, please forgive me, it sounds a lot like asking the hungry fox to monitor the hens. How, praytell, does one who played a central role in placing the CSD in its current precarious financial position now get appointed to serving on a federal committee which is, presumably, overseeing the situation?
Truly. And without insult or judgement. This seems an odd appointment. Help me to understand the why's, the how's and the potential ramifications. TIA.
sewertoons said... "The report also stated in the Treatment Plant Site section that if an out of town site was used, a return line for recycled water should be considered in the initial phase. I recall Ripley's plan put that part in the later if you want to pay for it, Phase 2, for cost reasons. Then in the next section, Treatment Technologies, it states that "…reuse options could be added at a later date (phase) to return water for in-town landscape irrigation…" Again, cost."
Funny you would bring this up... these things were not included in the Tri-W plan.
I can hear it now... Richard and the rest of his clan complaining about the cost of these things and how the Tri-W plan didn't include these costs so why do we have to pay them now.
Ripley was trying to get an apples to apples comparison... I think it's great he left these out of the initial price but included them as options for the future. I think the community should know what future plans are and how much they cost.
Future costs help make todays decision on costs a more educated decision... something the old CSD tried to prevent.
um .... pg ....
I think your question about Richard playing a role in putting the CSD in its current precarious position presumes a lot.
It was pretty much entirely the current board who made choices which put us in the situation we are in today. I've outlined in the past how the post-Recall board could have played their cards differently to achieve fewer problems. For example, the board could have simply told the contractors to go home rather than agreeing to pay them to not work. Another example, the board could have taken a 218 vote to borrow money to pay for Ripley and lawyers that we could not pay without going bankrupt. Yet another example, they could have asked the SWRCB in advance for permission to stop work until it was determined whether Measure B would preclude construction at TriW.
It is the screw-ups of the post-Recall board which has caused problems. Even if you tell us that we wouldn't have had to pay contractors had we not started construction and we wouldn't have had to pay back the SWRCB, we would still have been fined and sued by contractors (because the contracts had already been signed). Furthermore, the CSD would have gone bankrupt far sooner. Don't you remember that the post-Recall CSD lived off the SRF funds for some time.
It wouldn't have been much better or worse had construction not started before the recall .... just different.
A final note: I agree with you about the appointment. Yes, Richard would have the knowhow to help a judge figure things out but any conclusions Richard would reach would be obviously viewed as biased so Richard's help won't really be as helpful as if it were provided by another person.
LeGros said... "PS: FYI - The Federal Bankruptcy Court has just appointed me to the Creditors Committee. This will be interesting."
What a perfect choice... who better to know about bankruptcy than someone that had been through it himself, huh Richard?
LeGros is on a committee that has to do with the CSD bankruptcy? Is this a sick joke? Please God make these people go away! How does one get appointed to this committee? Can I apply? LeGros or someone who knows what's going on please explain the process to us! As mentioned above, it seems like a case of the fox hearing the pleadings of the hens in the henhouse. For God's sake Richard let us out! We're pleading!
To PG-13:
I guess the lawyers who will be on the creditor's committee had nothing to do with our precarious position. Or Ripley for that matter. How about the state? How about Wil-Dan and Bleskey?
pg-13 sez:
"But, please forgive me, it sounds a lot like asking the hungry fox to monitor the hens. How, praytell, does one who played a central role in placing the CSD in its current precarious financial position now get appointed to serving on a federal committee which is, presumably, overseeing the situation? "
This statement shows a complete ignorance of the nature of a creditor's committee. The creditors want to get paid what they are due. We all have been paying for the bond and deserve to be on the creditors committee. The judge oversees the situation.
Your comment above is a dangerous and actually unfounded speculation. What central role did Richard play to STOP the legally permitted and funded sewer? What role did he play in the consequences of the action to stop the sewer? Are you blaming him for not voting to proceed on a legally funded and permitted sewer that was mandated by the water law and regulating authorities? Did he violate HIS oath of office and surcome to an ignorant very slight majority? Is there any evidence that he made a gift of public funds to previously pro bono attornies to settle previously lost cases under appeal that were against the LOCSD? Was a gift of public funds given to Ripley to study all that was studied before and basicly come up with a plan that was published two years before?
The appointment is not odd. Did you ever stop to think that the bankruptcy may be denied?
Hi All,
You all know I care very much for Los Osos. I intend to serve on the Creditor's Committee with the intent of protecting the pocketbooks of Los Ososians while assisting the CSD to develop a Debt Adjustment Plan that is viable and fair.
The Federal Bankruptcy Laws give Creditor's Committees the power to gather information from all parties (Creditors and Debtors) and make recommendations via the Court (compel if necessary) to help resolve conflicts.
Please note that I am only one voice on a COMMITTEE. Individuals do not make decisions... the COMMITTEE majority does.
I really do look forward with working with the CSD the Creditors and (through the Court); assist in getting the Los Osos CSD viable again.
Nothing to fear guys... I will do only what is proper, ethical and fair. Besides, I am the only voice on the Committee that lives in Los Osos. I wish the best for my neighbors.
Regards, Richard LeGros
Anon 4:41,
The Phase 2 costs I mentioned were left off of the TRI-W plan as the water was to be returned to the aquifer at Broderson. That WAS the re-use. Broderson WAS figured into the costs.
It sounds good, Richard. I hope you are sincere. If so, it might go a long way in healing our community. I am tired of the personal "wars" and hope you are too.
Apologies - I was up late last night wasting a lot of time composing a long overly verbose commentary. It didn't add much to the conversation. It was just more of the same so I took it off. It doesn't appear anybody else is responding to it so no harm, no foul (I hope). Thanks all.
Richard:
Have you paid the judgement handed down by the court to Richard Margetson yet?
You may live in Los Osos, but high on the hill where you don't pay for a sewer or pretty much anything for operating the CSD, what kind of "help" is that? Who needs it?
Post a Comment