Latest Sewer Cost Projections
My thanks to Ron Crawford of www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com . He emailed me a note that the regular June 2nd Update Sewer Report before the BOS included the latest breakdown of possible prices going from worst case to best case scenarios, i.e. present realities to all potential financial aid sources all becoming available. (Some folks call that latter scenario, “dreaming,”but ya never know.) You can watch the presentation at http://slocounty.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=&clip_id710
Briefly, all the monthly “fees” will remain the same. The only amount that will change will be the capital assessment amount plus the cost for hook up. The SWB has declared Los Osos a disadvantaged community so it can qualify for a 1% @ 30 year stimulus SRF money. The county is still looking into USDA grants for poor people for hook ups. The WRDA 35 million is still allocated, if the money can be found and plugged in. And they’re asking for $10 mil in state funds. Plus, interestingly, construction costs on average have dropped 30% due to the economic downturn. And, at this point, nobody knows what the base project cost actually will be until the project is picked and the actual bids come in.
So, the guestimates as to monthly costs run from $250 a month with zero assistance down to $98 a month if all the financial loans and grants come in, a figure which is in the ball park for the EPA “suggested” affordability amount.
The county is planning to ramp up affordability issues this fall to get information to the public, including the possibility of setting up a sort of “universal” application that people under a certain income could fill out and the county could then plug in the sections with the appropriate agencies, so as to streamline the process of getting help. There’ll be workshops and other public outreach programs as well.
WATER FEST
My thanks to Keith Wimer for getting me a flyer during the Field Trip! Field Trip! to the Monterey wastewater facilities regarding WATERFEST ‘09
Saturday, June 20, 2009 10am – 2 pm. Free Admission . South side of Morro Rock in Morro Bay.
Held in conjuction with International Surfing Day.
Paddle out at 9:30 a.m.
Paddleboard Games throughout the day and much more!
There’ll be family fun, a bounce house, children’s state, educational fun, plus live music from noon to 5, all supported by a variety of sponsors and supporters and event organizers, including Cal Poly, Atascadero Mutual Water Company, Morro Bay national Estuaary Program, SLO County Partner for Water Quality, SLO Green Build, Surfrider Foundation & etc.
Should be a fun day. For further info, www.slowaterfest.org
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Ann wrote:
"So, the guestimates as to monthly costs run from $250 a month with zero assistance down to $98 a month if all the financial loans and grants come in, a figure which is in the ball park for the EPA “suggested” affordability amount. "
What I find interesting these days... is that the tiny handful of people responsible for the Tri-W embarrassment are in such a funny, weird place.
That tiny handful of people actually has to lobby FOR the worst case scenario. They actually have to lobby AGAINST my SRF challenge, that could potentially save Los Osos millions upon millions of dollars.
If (read: when) my SRF challenge gets a favorable ruling, it'll pave the way for that low interest SRF loan, and SHOULD save Los Osos another $6 million, because, like I so tightly argue, "why should the good people of Los Osos have to pay for the State's $6 million mistake?" That's not fair.
Which means that the monthly cost edges closer to the best case scenario, and THAT means:
1) The recall election "moved the sewer" out of town, just what everyone (well, everyone EXCEPT that tiny handful of people responsible for the Tri-W embarrassment) wanted.
and;
2) It made the project cheaper.
And THAT means that the tiny handful of people responsible for the Tri-W embarrassment have absolutely no arguments left.
So, they can't let #2 happen. They have to fight, and lobby to make the project as expensive as possible, just so they can say, "See? The recall election made the project waaaaay more expensive."
It's a very interesting dynamic at work -- the Gordon Hensleys, Richard LeGroses, Pandora Nash-Karners, and Sewertoonses of the world have to fight to make the project as expensive as possible.
Unbelievable.
Imagine -- just imagine -- if the best case scenario comes about, and the monthly cost is $98 (which that tiny handful of people responsible for the Tri-W embarrassment can never let happen), AND the sewer plant is out of town, downwind, just what nearly everyone wants.
Look at what an amazing question that poses: Why did the LOCSD waste 6 years (1999 - 2005) and $25 million of Los Osos taxpayer money, AND rip the community apart in the process, AND dump the county's 1999 "ready to go" project in the trash in the process, AND destroy all of that ESHA at the Tri-W site, attempting to build a very expensive "sewer-park" in an extremely unpopular mid-town location?
WTF?!
That doesn't seem to make any sense whatsoever?
So, why did they do that?
Interesting question, huh, SLO County District Attorney, Gerald Shea?
Anyone? Anyone?: Why did the LOCSD waste 6 years (1999 - 2005) and $25 million of Los Osos taxpayer money, AND rip the community apart in the process, AND dump the county's 1999 "ready to go" project in the trash in the process, AND destroy all of that ESHA at the Tri-W site, attempting to build a very expensive "sewer-park" in an extremely unpopular mid-town location?
By the way, I hope some people kept copies of Pandora's "Save The Dream" newsletters, like I did... talk about a disgusting pile of "behavior based marketing:"
"A recall will not move or stop the sewer, it will make it more expensive! DON’T LISTEN TO GOSSIP. Hear the facts for yourself."
-- Pandora Nash-Karner, Save the Dream Newsletter #2
"More delays mean the LOCSD may be fined out of existence. We’d lose local control."
-- Pandora Nash-Karner, from Save the Dream Newsletter #4, March 25, 2005
"I hope the CSD gets fined out of existence..."
-- Pandora Nash-Karner, Sept. 28, 2005, one day after the recall election
Bleh.
Thanks for the link, Ann.
Ron,
That SRF $6.5 million is in Bankruptcy court.
The State can't ask for repayment twice.
They get pennies on the dollar.
But, seems the state and county are playing another trick with that 1% added to the new SRF loan.
We are entitled to a zero percent loan! The state is adding the 1% trying to recoup the loan (the illegal one).
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Low [mailto:Mark@NOwastewater.com]
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 3:48 PM
To: 'pogren@co.slo.ca.us'
Cc: BGibson@co.slo.ca.us
Subject: RE: Freedom of Information Act request
Thank you.
It is important to have as a complete a record as is possible, no matter how much time it takes.
Mark Low
602.740.7975 voice
480.464.0405 facsimile
Mark@NOwastewater.com
P.O. Box 1355 Mesa, Arizona 85211
Spero Meliora "I aspire to greater things"
-----Original Message-----
From: pogren@co.slo.ca.us [mailto:pogren@co.slo.ca.us]
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 3:37 PM
To: Mark Low
Cc: BGibson@co.slo.ca.us
Subject: Re: Freedom of Information Act request
Mark
I am forwarding this to our accounting division so that can develop a cost estimate for you in accordance with the FOIA. Yes you are correct that your request may take longer than 10 days and I appreciate your acknowledgment of this in advance.
Paavo Ogren
Director of Public Works
pogren@co.slo.ca.us
805-781-5291 (w)
805-781-1229 (fax)
Greeting Paavo,
I understand there is $28,000.00 left from the $7,000,000.00 you have requested from the Board.
Please consider this a Freedom of Information Act Request for the invoices and cancelled checks, which support the financial activity you and your team have paid out towards your LOWWP “study” process from the beginning to present.
I understand this is a tall order which will require considerable effort and may take more than ten days to produce so I will be patient as you perform the necessary and fiduciary work in response to this request.
Regards,
Mark Low
602.740.7975 voice
480.464.0405 facsimile
Mark@NOwastewater.com
P.O. Box 1355 Mesa, Arizona 85211
Spero Meliora "I aspire to greater things"
Ann wrote:
I'm still waiting for an answer to, "What was the poison pill in Vacuum that got it knocked off the table early on?" The question isn't rhetorical, I'd like to know? Was it too energy intensive? Expensive? Toonces claimed the onsite footprint was huge, Mark said, No, very small. So, what was it?
Ann -“sorry, I forgot his last name” Lynette, does not have the facts. She wouldn’t know them even when they are posted on the county’s website and doesn’t want them to get in the way of her sorry “story”.
Ann wrote:
And, while I'm at it, didn't one of the MWH sub-contractors donate pots of money to the anti-recall fund, if memory serves, so now I'm wondering if MWH or one of it's subsidiaries ever donated money to any of Sam Blakeslee's campaigns? Not that there would be anything illegal or improper about such a donation, I'm just curious.
And most curious of all is this Question: Just who IS looking out for the best interests of the citizens of the PZ, anyway? Well, who knows?
WM wrote: At this point in the process, I contend that: Design-Build isn't what the county is doing.
When they specified technology instead of parameters they dictated the outcome."
"Paavo compounded that problem with by rushing STEP off Stage and specifying gravity in the DEIR which was then put forward to the contracting community for RFQ before the PC and CCC processes were initiated and completed."
"Why wasn’t vacuum collection studied in a co-equal manner by Paavo’s handpicked/no bid/sole source consulting engineer?"
"$7 million dollars should have yielded a report denouncing vacuum.
Why wasn't vacuum collection studied, compared and denounced?"
Ann wrote: I'm still waiting for an answer to all of those questions.
Ann,
We can’t be the only ones who are “curious”.
"When Congress approved the original Clean Water Act”, the people were much more concerned with their role in government.
Ann,
We aren’t the only ones who are “curious”.
Subject: EDIT REQUIRED It was the WB not the CCC that is requiring the sewer
May as well update the SLOCO et al involvement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Osos
Sewer Controversy
This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (August 2008)
The community has been required by the California Coastal Commission to build a sewer in order to obviate the need for septic tanks in Los Osos. The California Coastal Commission issued a building moratorium for Los Osos because the town's septic tanks are too numerous and concentrated to dissipate nitrates. The cost of the sewer is estimated to be well over $150 million and home-owners have been told that they may be assessed a sewer fee in excess of $200 a month. The Los Osos Community Services District was formed by residents as a response to the high cost of the original sewer proposal, and is the agency in charge of building the sewer, also providing the town's drinking water, drainage, parks, recreation, and street lighting.
There is also a controversy about where the sewer should be built. A location in the center of Los Osos (also known as the Tri-W site after the name of the property) was chosen, partly because of a desire for an additional park. The County, water board and Coastal Commission approved a sewer at the Tri-W site after hearing critic's claims.
In August 2005, the CSD began building a sewer at the Tri-W site, contractors began work on the project and were advanced payments from State Revolving Fund loan. Following a recall election which replaced the majority of the CSD board and enacted an initiative measure that would require relocation of the project, the new board stopped building the sewer, despite a letter warning them of severe consequences from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Due to the action of the new CSD board, the costs of the sewer project have greatly increased.
In October 2005, the CSD defaulted on a low interest State Revolving Fund loan and the state subsequently refused to disburse additional funds and demanded immediate repayment. Project contractors filed suit for more than $23 million in lost profits and costs. State and regional water boards have used their regulatory power to impose fines against the district in the amount of $6.6 million for water pollution resulting from septic tank discharge of more than 1 million gallons per day. During February 2006 the Regional Water Quality Control Board, a state agency, threatened it would begin to issue cease and desist orders to citizens of Los Osos, and may require recipients to pump their septic systems every three years, and to stop using them by 2011.
On August 25, 2006, the district filed for Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection in federal court. While the district had enough money to cover day to day needs, they did not have enough money to cover their legal fees and consultant fees. This action stays the legal actions against the district related to money owed. Contractor lawsuits and other actions seeking monetary damages or claims against the district will be held in abeyance while the district addresses its financial situation.
Additionally, legislation has been approved by the California legislature that would return control of construction of the wastewater treatment facility to the County of San Luis Obispo. The bill, AB 2701, was signed by the governor and went into effect January 1, 2007.
Why no mention of the 45 CDO's or NOV's...?
Ann wrote:
And most curious of all is this Question: Just who IS looking out for the best interests of the citizens of the PZ, anyway? Well, who knows?
The $200,000,000.00+/- Question(s)...
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Low [mailto:Mark@NOwastewater.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 4:09 PM
To: 'wclemens@co.slo.ca.us'
Cc: BGibson@co.slo.ca.us; 'pogren@co.slo.ca.us'
Subject: PRA LOWWP
Mr. Clemens,
Thank you for your most prompt response, it is appreciated.
At this time, I will allow more project recordation to accrue before spending my time and energy to review the documentation in your possession.
Rather than to simply pay for another "load" of records before I inspect them, I will make arrangements to review your files, in person, before placing my order.
The last time I ordered information from John Waddell, I was told there were many more pages than I actually received. So I'll bring what I received in an effort to compare it with what you have on file. I'm trying to obtain a copy of a "detailed billing" for a very specific meeting that took place which was not included in that initial order.
If my schedule allows, I should be available towards late summer to visit San Luis Obispo and I will let you well in advance.
Your continuing professionalism is truly appreciated, especially during what is certain to be a very busy and difficult time for you and your office.
My very best regards,
Mark Low
602.740.7975 voice
480.464.0405 facsimile
Mark@NOwastewater.com
P.O. Box 1355 Mesa, Arizona 85211
Spero Meliora "I aspire to greater things"
-----Original Message-----
From: wclemens@co.slo.ca.us [mailto:wclemens@co.slo.ca.us]
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 2:30 PM
To: Mark@NOwastewater.com
Cc: pogren@co.slo.ca.us; bgibson@co.slo.ca.us
Subject: Fw: Freedom of Information Act request
Mr. Low
Attached is our response to your request which is also being sent by US mail.
Will Clemens
County of San Luis Obispo
Public Works Department Administrator
(805) 781-5299
(See attached file: 2009-06-17 Resp to Low FOIA request.pdf)
----- Forwarded by Will Clemens/PubWorks/COSLO on 06/17/2009 02:26 PM -----
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Low [mailto:Mark@NOwastewater.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 4:14 PM
To: 'Shark Inlet'
Subject: PRA LOWWP
Hello Steve,
Would you be so kind as to post this in plain sight?
Mark Low
602.740.7975 voice
480.464.0405 facsimile
Mark@NOwastewater.com
P.O. Box 1355 Mesa, Arizona 85211
Spero Meliora "I aspire to greater things"
Mr. Low
Attached is our response to your request which is also being sent by US mail.
Will Clemens
County of San Luis Obispo
Public Works Department Administrator
(805) 781-5299
(See attached file: 2009-06-17 Resp to Low FOIA request.pdf)
----- Forwarded by Will Clemens/PubWorks/COSLO on 06/17/2009 02:26 PM -----
Steve,
Thank you for your assistance, or not...
I personally appreciate Steve extending himself across the aisle and will hope this is a sign of positive start of good things to come.
Thank you again, Steve.
From: Shark Inlet [mailto:sharkinlet@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 10:23 PM
To: Mark Low
Subject: Re: PRA LOWWP
Sure ... no problem.
I put it online at: ”http://sharkinlet.fileave.com” and you can post a link on Ann's blog (or wherever).
All the best...
S
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Mark Low -Mark@nowastewater.com wrote:
Hi Steve,
The attached is what I would like to share with the class.
Your help with getting it on line is appreciated.
Shovel Ready
San Luis Obispo missed the boat.
They must be distracted...Bleh.
Beverly Hills
Post a Comment