Gibson Spends, Los Osos Pays Again
Posted on 06. Nov, 2009 by Aaron in Los Osos
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
12 Responses to “Gibson Spends, Los Osos Pays Again”
Leave a Reply
- Maria Kelly: Los Osos Water Witch Bitches Again
- Los Osos Animosity
- Los Osos: Getting Stronger When Focused
- Pitiful Criticism of Schicker in New Times
- Friday Round-Up: Back to 2005
- Robert: Aaron is right on the money. Los Osos is getting s...
- susan: Type your comment here......
- Julie: Excellent points Aaron. The Trib just wants to se...
- Liza Klump: I don't think LAPD, Ventura PD or even Simi PD wou...
- David Duggan: 54950. The people of this State do not yield their...
News From The ROCK
- 'Reclamator' Man Sues Everybody
- COASTAL COMMISSION HAS MORE ‘SUBSTANTIAL ISSUES’ WITH SEWER PROJECT THAN COUNTY ADMITS
- County’s Omissions, Gaps and Lies Force Coastal Commission Hearing on Unresolved Sewer Issues
- COUNTY’S SEWER PROJECT TIMELINE DELAYED MONTHS
- ARE YOU HAVING SEWER PROBLEMS???
- ‘PROHIBITION ZONE’ FEVER GRIPS MALIBU
- The Freestyle Magic of Tokyo Joe’s Sushi
Julie
08. Nov, 2009
Great reporting Aaron. Don’t forget that the $1 Million budget adjustment in January 2009 came from Los Osos roads already. Paavo had a very difficult time saying that this additional $250K would only impact Los Osos, he mummbled his answers to Supervisor Mecham, because he couldn’t say with certianty that roads in Pozo wouldn’t be affected.
Wednesday, in a conversation I had with Public Works Department, Los Osos Road Engineer, Jeremy Ghent, it appears Los Osos will be taking the brunt of this additional $250K sooner as opposed to later. He explained that the word had come down that morning that the Ralphs median will not be getting the work that Celebrate Los Osos had planned to partner up to do. The County was set to replace the irrigation system as well as remove the dead plants and excess soil and replace it with new soil (estimated $20K-30K). Jeremy said other projects in Los Osos will also suffer, even the Santa Ysabel improvements which were to have grant monies spent on them won’t have the County’s matching contributions. So pretty much unless it’s a real safety hazard, Los Osos won’t have road improvements of any kind until the due diligence period is over and the bonds can be sold to repay the County. This deferred maintenance will lead to higher costs associated with repairs, thanks Paavo, who promised only $2 million was necessary in 2006 to take over the project.
Lisa Klump
08. Nov, 2009
Julie, You have brought up some excellent points. As you well know, Los Osos has ALWAYS been treated like a “step child” by SLO County. The streets have been in disrepair for ages. Anytime I drive down Santa Ysabel, I have to dodge so many potholes or fear having a bumper or fender fall off my one year old car!!!! Another problem is that dumb a$$ median the county installed on Santa Ysabel…The configuration is wrong for the street. The medians are MUCH too large for that narrow street. It is difficult for emergendy vehicles to turn around on that street. I don’t know who was in charge of the “design” for that monstrosity, but whoever it was, the county needs to either demote or fire them. Paavo needs to go, he’s done nothing for Los Osos. Ditto for Bruce Gibson. (I’m proud to say that I DID NOT vote for HIM)
David Duggan
09. Nov, 2009
As to the Los Osos legislation of the 2010 Agriculture Appropriations bill that was just signed. How does this legislation impact the previous legislation of the 2007 Water Resources Development Act authorization of $35 million for the construction of a wastewater treatment facility in Los Osos? Does the new legislation help add more money’s to the project? Do we lose that $35 million? I asked that question at the Sups meeting but John Diodoti refused to answer on the record. I suspect that perhaps we are going to lose one for the other and end up with less. Could someone enlighten me?
Also, I had handed in a hand written question to Paavo asking when was the resolution for accepting project going to be brought before the board. With out reading it he crumpled it up and threw it in the the garbage can which I believe is illegal because it is a public document. I immediate rewrote it and handed it to Bruce Gibson who folded it up and set it to the side. My question was not specifically answered. What good is it to write it down and hand it in if it’s not going to be answered? Are they afraid to try and answer it on the record? Both Bruce and Paavo seemed angry. Was it because I pointed out that the changes requested by the Coastal Commission was not just a wording change of the condition but a physical change of the project such as (bringing the water back to the Los Osos Ground Water Basin to be used for recharge and reuse)? I was only stating the obvious such as, “the emperor wears no clothes.”
Lisa Klump
09. Nov, 2009
David, good luck with getting a straight answer from either Paavo or Gibson!
Julie
10. Nov, 2009
Dave,
I watched Paavo throw your note away, then saw him dig it out of the trash when you handed in the your second attempt. I suspect we won’t get a straight answer to your excellent question, at least not in the near term. The fact is the County just authorized spending of $150K to pursue the USDA grant, let’s see if we ever get any return on that investment. The fact that the PZ “overwhelmingly” voted to assess themselves will be a tough nut to swallow for Senators in, say Kansas, to authorize grant funds to pay for any portion of the project…we voted to pay for it ourselves. These guys want their grant dollars to go to needy people, they want those dollars to go as far as possible, when you compete with a million people in Louisiana verses 12,500 in the PZ, the odds are really long.
Best of luck to us all.
Alon Perlman
10. Nov, 2009
If you present material during meeting, it is best to give copies to staff, clerk and supervisors (or Planning Commissioners). Doesn’t work as well for notes. The BOS Clerk should have the notes from public to Sup. or Staff, You could ask the Clerk to see the Archived paperwork, the turned in speaker slips are public record (iv’e reviewed all PC files for CDP LOWWTP).
No median, Yowch, a lot of work.
Julie
11. Nov, 2009
Alon,
Notes passed in, via whoever is at the end of the dias are suposed to be passed forward to the chair. Ogren tossed it in the trash, big no no. The chair, in turn, will give to the clerk for the file. Doesn’t matter if it comes in the form of scrimsha or stone tablet, it is not to be thrown away.
One time we wanted to roll our toilet into the Board chambers and the clerk, having seen us out in the lobby with it, stopped us and said,”please don’t bring that in, I can’t file it as part of the record, so I will need a photo.”
Every bit of evidence is suposed to be retained and incorporated and avialable for the record.
Lisa Klump
12. Nov, 2009
Hi Aaron & Ed,
This is off topic, but since YOU are so good at “uncovering irregular activities”, maybe you can answer my question…Today, I received paperwork from the bankruptcy court. I & many others who paid our “assessment” for the now defunct treatment plant ‘up front’ were encouraged to file in an attempt to get some or all of our money back. I vividly remember being told by Bruce Buell, prior to signing my check for the assessment, that IF IT DID NOT GO THROUGH, WE WOULD GET OUR MONEY BACK. HA! In going through the papers, I notice that the town’s infamous GRIFTER, Al Barrow, has his “Citizens for affordable safe environment” listed in 3 different places in the documents…..My question: Why is HE filing? What is it HE wants returned? What dollar amount is HE out? It seems to me that it appears he makes his living off filing law suits where HE clearly HAS NOT been damaged. I thought this law suit was all about hopefully being made “whole” again. Since he is NOT a homeowner, what EXACTLY are HIS loses, since HE paid nothing, he’s lost nothing? Please try to clear this matter up for me. Thanks lots, fella’s!
Alon Perlman
15. Nov, 2009
Al has at various times implied that he owns a septic tank and at times admitted to being a renter.
He is still parasiting on Los Osos. Just protecting his Investments
We can rag on Al all day long but what we will get is one of his “Eco-Lites” arguing that he is a saint or that at worst a concerned citizen with an Anger Management problem.
I can do one better.
I can’t point out to Al’s fake Environmental web-site because it is down.
“Citizens for Affordable and Safe Environment” has not been operational except for a brief period in late ’08. http://www.case-environmental.org/
CLIA-Coalition for Low Income Housing” came back around October ’08. Looks good… “too good”
“In order to address this problem, please consider making a donation to CLIH. We need your help. We accept land deeds, chattel, and capital, all of which will be used in perpetuity for affordable housing in Central California.
To make a donation, please contact us or email info@clih.net. “
http://www.clih.net/. There is not a Los Osos Legal Defense Fund website, but the money is coming from somewhere.
Who is vetting?
My evidence that Al gives a hoot, only for the housing of only one “Low income person”, is present in the transcripts of the Board of Supervisors meetings for this month.
The same place that his soon to be replaced current “Eco Lite” will go to prove the opposite.
I’m setting this as a riddle and a time-stamp.
The meetings are the BOS Nov 3 and Nov 10 meetings, and the CSD’s Nov 9, ‘09 meeting.
During the Nov 3, Board of Supervisors Meeting, General comments the minutes show Mr. Al Barrow: comments on economic issues, the impacts to affordable housing and the need for transition housing.
So how can I claim that he is Grandstanding, let alone bogus?
Easy, too easy.
Hint “The measure of a man is in what he does, not in what he says. It’s also a matter of when.” Apparently not a St. Francis Quote
So let someone else do their homework.
“There’s a sucker born every minute”
P.T. Barnum quotes (American circus Entertainer, He created The Greatest Show on Earth (1871). 1810-1891)
Lisa Klump
15. Nov, 2009
Alon,
Thanks for the info. We all know that Al is a “con man” & it’s horrible the way he misleads some of the elderly folks around town. He has said more than once, that he intends to “inherit” a home here. Too bad Pat Hedges isn’t at the top of his game any more! Wonder if they (law enforcement) could get him on a 51-50 hold? I’d like to see something longer term, however!!!!
Julie
16. Nov, 2009
Mr. Barrow is a listed creditor, not for any monies, but because of his earlier association with BWS. He was told to remove himself, he did not. That’s Al.
As for any of you poor souls who paid up front, you got a 15% discount as compared to the rest of us poor souls who will be paying for the full 20 years. (did you know that the LOCSD didn’t pay up front and get the discount? They didn’t, so we all pay the higher price for those properties that were assessed.) What we all got for that money is what the County is using towards the new project. Environmental work, design (gravity), real estate (Broderson, Tri-W and countless pump stations/easements). These were all costs not elidgible for SRF funds.
No one will be made “whole” only the lawyers will come out unscathed.
Alon Perlman
16. Nov, 2009
Yeh, A hard rain is going to come.
[Insert something humorous to break the tension]
It’s still a fairly wide process, but when the current (some essential Add-ons) costs are added up, it’s even worser. Too bad the EIR was for the wrong project. Also the additional admin workConditions, cheaper by the hundred and bakers dozen.