The Tribune reported on October 30th that the Los Osos Community Services District is set to pay its new General Manager, W. Dan Gilmore, $90,000 a year during a period when the district is looking to crawl out of bankruptcy. Gilmore was a utilities engineer for the city of San Luis Obispo from 1992 to 2009, specializing in sewer-related capital investment projects. On Tuesday, the County Board of Supervisors, approved a $250,000 budget adjustment for the Los Osos wastewater project on top of the $7 million already spent though the board has not officially accepted the project.
During the LOWWP Update at Tuesday’s BOS meeting, Grants Administrator John Diodati discussed the USDA Population Waiver and how Los Osos is more likely to receive grant money now that Barack Obama signed into law the 2010 Agriculture Appropriations Bill. On page 99 of the bill, it reads:
SEC. 726. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and until receipt of the decennial census for the year 2010, the Secretary of Agriculture shall consider (A) the unincorporated area of Los Osos, California, the city of Imperial, California, and the Harrisville Fire District, Rhode Island, to be rural, areas for the purposes of eligibility for Rural Utilities Service water and waste disposal loans and grants;
Reflecting on the language of the bill, Diodati commented that he felt like he was the father providing a “baby photo” of that portion of the bill.
Since Obama signed the bill into law, it has become top priority to complete the USDA application for grant money and have all necessary funds obligated before American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds run out or expire.
Diodati projected that it would be a likely scenario for Los Osos to receive estimated assistance of 50% USDA financing, which would consist of a $66 million loan and a $16 million grant. The monthly assessment cost would be reduced by 21%. The USDA would be determining how much financing Los Osos will receive by March 2010. The $250,000 requested by county staff to pull out of the roads fund would be applied to completing the application. By not voting for the additional spending, then the future of obtaining additional grant funds and cost savings becomes uncertain.
However, there’s several x factors that call the grant application process into question.
BOS member Jim Patterson asked Diodati, “Will you be applying for a fixed amount of money or for a percentage of the total project cost?” Diodati said that he applied for the fixed amount that will be a part of the project component. “[The USDA] is going to want to see us request money for a certain part of the project that is tangible to them,” said Diodati. The fixed amount for the current LOWWP without component bids stands at $165 million with the possibility that it could go much higher than that due to a variety of economic, strategic (MWH), even legal fees. While grants can be secured for covering a part of the fixed amount of a project component, there is no Prohibition Zone homeowner protection from unforeseeable costs — the blank-check Proposition 218 assessment took care of that — and those unforeseeable costs could easily negate cost savings from the monthly assessment.
Later, BOS member Frank Mecham asked, “Where is [the $250,000 budget adjustment] money going to come from?”
John Waddell replied that the money would come from a budget transfer from the roads fund, which had already been allocated from the general fund and loaned to the Los Osos project on a temporary basis. Therein lies a potential problem. When the LOWWP reaches the construction phase and residents are faced with issues involving deep trenching on County-neglected roads, who is going to be paying for that? Who is going to be responsible for repairing those roads? On Tuesday, there was a clear conflict. After public comment on the Los Osos agenda item, Mecham and BOS member Adam Hill expressed concern about their constituents having to pick up the tab for the recommended $250,000 for Los Osos and relevant future budget adjustments, which would come out of design-build efforts and the due-diligence process among other things that were not specified in the County staff presentation.
In translation, some members of the board believe that Los Osos residents should be responsible for all expenditures pertaining to County funds that have Los Osos objectives — residents will have to pay for the mistakes and afterthoughts (extra costs) made by the County.
Los Osos resident, LOCAC member and former member of the LOCSD’s Emergency Services Committee Alon Perlman said during public comment, “It is incumbent on the County to reserve roads funds to allow road improvements to roads during the project; to restore emergency vehicle response to current levels to service and access.” Usage of the roads funds now could jeopardize the efficiency of transportation of emergency vehicles later if the County taps the roads fund dry.
Residents will have to pay for the County’s ignorance and lack of foresight — for not taking into account the objections and observations found in public comment. Last June, the Los Osos Sustainability Group (LOSG) and the San Luis Bay chapter of the Surfrider Foundation proposed Environmental Impact Report (EIR) scoping recommendations for analysis of conservation, beneficial reuse (which strikes at the heart of Planning Commission Condition #97) and green alternatives. The EIR did not address any of those recommendations.
Weighing in on the current appeals to the process, Gibson said, “If I were a man of some irony, I would notice that there are people who have caused delay in this project by appealing this [...] to the Coastal Commission, who are complaining about further allocations for the Public Works team to get the job done.” Delay, Mr. Gibson? No, the delay is coming from your stubborn unwillingness to divulge the specifics of concerns addressed by people who have previously addressed problems that County staff is addressing now.
Once again, you blindly focus on the action and the end-result. “Look at what Congress has done. Look at what Congress has allowed us to do. Look at the milestones: we’re achieving major funding and permitting goals. Look at the $250,000 that’s being allocated. That money is necessary to accomplish the necessary future steps. Let’s have faith in Paavo!” That’s fine and dandy, but Mr. Gibson, you haven’t taken into account who is going to pay for that money and how the Prohibition Zone residents will be affected by the additional, seemingly endless expenditures that are going up, over and beyond the original $7 million allocated for the project — and the $250 a month on top of that.
As you hold a high standard for people who participate in your forum of discussion and deliberation, the voters hold a high standard for you to address the issues including the issue of budget adjustments. You and your board failed to do so at a critical juncture of the process.
– Aaron Ochs
