Hey, Pre-Paid Los Osos Sewer Assessment Folks? How's THIS taste?

So, picture this: You're a responsible Los Osos property owner, and you've been squirreling away a little money here and there, month after month, over the past several years, in anticipation of a whopping sewer assessment comin' down the pipe, just so you could pay the entire tax at once, and save a bundle by not having to pay interest rates over the ensuing years.

Then, after years of diligent, financial squirreling-ness, where you now have, sitting in your bank account, the $25,000 that the County of SLO will be collecting, eventually, from ALL property owners in Los Osos (well, most of them), to pay for their Los Osos sewer project, and the County finally comes a-callin', and says something like, "Hey, if there's anyone in Los Osos that wants to pay their entire sewer assessment up front, now's the time," you get to say, "I'd be happy to. After all, I think my town badly needs a sewer system, and I'm glad I can immediately help clean our water, plus, I'll be saving a good chunk of money by paying up front, so, it's all good," and then you, proudly, hand the County a $25,000 check.

This blog post is specifically for the first six property owners to go that responsible, reasonable route... and, oh, is this great!

I'm going to track what happened with the very first six pre-paid sewer assessments that were collected by the County.

In case you missed it, SLO County Supervisors, yesterday, at their weekly Tuesday meeting, approved, among other things, two payments to local consultants, as part of their update on their Los Osos wastewater project.

The first payment was for $86,000 to "Rick Engineering," for "design of the mid-town site restoration" [note: that's just for the "design"... not the "restoration" itself.]

The second payment was another $60,000 for the Wallace Group, for "engineering consulting services."

According to the staff report for that item, to pay for those consultants, County officials, for the first time in their four years-and-counting sewer project development process, are using funds that were collected from the pre-paid sewer assessments, that I just detailed above, that totaled just over $2 million, or, a tiny fraction of the property owners in Los Osos.

Prior to collecting those assessments, the County's entire development process -- some $8 million worth -- was paid for using County coffers from places like "the roads fund."

For the purpose of this piece, I'm going to take that $86,000 payment, and that $60,000 payment, and just round it off at $150,000, or, six pre-paid, $25,000 sewer assessments... the FIRST SIX, right out of the gate, poof! Gone... just like that [snap!].

And, at yesterday's meeting, here's where County Supervisors unanimously voted to spend that years and years worth of diligent financial squirreling:

$86,000 to "design the mid-town site restoration" -- a "site restoration" to a site that, all things being equal, WOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN TOUCHED in the first place, had:

1) The 2005 Los Osos CSD Board majority NOT deliberately set their own recall election date at one of the latest possible dates, when they had the opportunity to set that election date BEFORE they began ripping up the "mid-town site" in September of 2005, as I first exposed at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2006/09/californias-recall-elections-code.html

... and this amazing link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2010/07/los-osos-whos-your-quarter-million.html

AND;

2) Had former State Division of Financial Assistance official, Darrin Polhemus simply listened to me on the phone that day in August of 2005, when I originally called him just to get some question answered for a story, yet ended up explaining to him how he was about to make a gigantic mistake by releasing an illegal loan (according to his office's own policy) to the LOCSD, and then that illegal loan was going to be used to rip up the "mid-town" "Tri-W" site, as I first exposed at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2005/08/sewerwatch-challenges-funding-for-los.html

HAD either of those tiny, easily accomplished, SIMPLE little things happened, the "mid-town site" wouldn't even need $86,000 worth of pre-paid sewer assessments to "restore," today.

Almost unimaginably, this story gets worse.

That second payment that Supervisors approved yesterday -- another $60,000 to the Wallace Group?

The Wallace Group... wait for it... was the Los Osos CSD's "District Engineer" in 2005, when they ripped up the Tri-W site for no reason whatsoever, to begin with!

In other words, the main reason the County has to spend that $86,000 to "design restoration" of the mid-town Tri-W site today, is because of the Wallace Group's disaster in 2005.

You can't make this stuff up: In the EXACT same meeting where County Supervisors coughed up $86,000 worth of pre-paid assessments to "design the mid-town site restoration" (which they are actually forced to do by the California Coastal Commission, as part of the development permit) -- a "restoration" that should have NEVER been needed in the first place -- they also cough up another $60,000 to the exact same engineers that were, in HUGE part, responsible for the site being ripped up, for no reason whatsoever, in 2005! -- the Wallace Group.

And, again, as with a lot of posts here at SewerWatch, here's where this entire mess goes flying off the rails, and into over-the-top-excellent-story-land, two things:

1) Right now, today, the County has sitting on its desks, a 2005 insurance policy, that was arranged by the 2005 (pre-recall) Los Osos CSD officials, specifically FOR the "mid-town site restoration," that would pay for nearly $250,000 (or TEN pre-paid assessments) of the overall cost to "restore the mid-town site," but for reasons that are not clear, they are NOT going to use it, as I first exposed at this excellent link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2010/07/los-osos-whos-your-quarter-million.html

And, of course, to top it all off...

2) In the 2001 report that launched the Tri-W sewer project disaster in the first place, it reads:

"We (the Los Osos CSD, and the engineering firm, Montgomery Watson Harza) thank Paavo Ogren and Rob Miller of John L. Wallace (Group)..."

And, also of course, Paavo Ogren is now the Director of Public Works for SLO County, who keeps hiring his old friends at the Wallace Group, to clean up the mess they ALL got paid to make in Los Osos... years ago.

Poof! Six pre-paid assessments. Gone, for that.

Ann Calhoun calls the place, "Chinatown." I call it "Chinatown on Steroids."

###

Chris Clark, Owner of Crawford Multari & Clark, Has A LOT of 'splainin' to Do

"I don't make deals, I don't party and drink with sources, and I don't play a game of leaks. I read, I listen, I squirrel information. It's fun."
- Seymour Hersh, Investigative journalist

"The first rule of government spending: Why build one, when you can have two at twice the price?"
- S.R. Hadden, from the movie, "Contact"

[Note: Good god, just how stupid are these people? Chris Clark writes, in an official document, "(I) was responsible for and successful at acquiring all environmental permits and clearances for the LOCSD (Tri-W) project," like that's a good thing. Hence, my e-mail.]

TO: Chris Clark, "Owner", Crawford Multari & Clark Associates
DATE: 4/17/11

Hello Mr. Clark,

I'm researching a story on the Los Osos wastewater project, and I was recently reviewing your contract with the County of San Luis Obispo, that I acquired through an official public records request.

The contract, dated 12/12/2006, calls for you "to assist the County in the development... of a wastewater project for Los Osos," for $150,000, and I just have a few quick questions that I'm hoping you can answer, please.

In that document, it reads, "(Chris Clark) was responsible for and successful at acquiring all environmental permits and clearances for the LOCSD (Tri-W) project."

That means that you are just the person I've been looking for, for the past five years -- since I first exposed, at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2006/08/loopiest-of-loopholes-recently.html

... how a simple, 4-page, 2001 LOCSD document, that you, apparently, created, called a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" (SOC), was the SOLE document that locked in the over-the-top disastrous, now failed (of course) "mid-town" (on ESHA) Tri-W sewer plant/"picnic area" site, for the above-mentioned "LOCSD project."

As I'm sure you know, that SOC "overrode" the entire environmental review process for the wastewater project in Los Osos, in 2001 - a process that showed that treatment facility sites (plural) east of town (out of town, and downwind) are "environmentally superior" -- just as the County's four-year/$8 million worth of analysis (more on that later) just showed is the way to go for Los Osos.

I've also been reporting, since I first exposed that great story, how the logic in the LOCSD's/your 2001 SOC doesn't seem to hold a drop of water.

For example, in your over-the-top disastrous SOC, it reads:

"An in-town site (Tri-W) was chosen over other locations because:

- It results in the lowest cost for the collection system by centrally locating the treatment facility within the area served: and

- It enables the treatment plant site to provide open space centrally located and accessible to the citizens of Los Osos;"

And that's it... the reasons stop there. Just those two are listed for why "an in-town (sewer plant) site (Tri-W) was chosen over other (out of town) locations."

However, here's the HUGE problem that I run into with your SOC.

As I also first exposed, at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2007/11/what-ought-to-be-law-part-ii-oh-wait.html

.... and that I'm also sure you're aware, CEQA law states, "... a statement of overriding considerations must be supported by substantial evidence contained in 'the final EIR and/or other information in the record." [bolding mine]

Here's the question that I've tried (unsuccessfully) to get answered time and time again over the past five years, ever since I first exposed all of this way back in 2006, and now, I think I've finally found the one person that can answer it, you:

Please point me to the "substantial evidence in the record" that you used in your 2001 SOC, when you were "responsible for and successful at acquiring all environmental permits and clearances for the LOCSD project," that "supports" this:

"An in-town site (Tri-W) was chosen over other locations because:

- It results in the lowest cost for the collection system by centrally locating the treatment facility within the area served: and

- It enables the treatment plant site to provide open space centrally located and accessible to the citizens of Los Osos;"

What substantial evidence do you point to that supports those two claims?

Because, to be frank, the way I see it, and I'm certainly not a wastewater engineer, but centrally locating a sewer plant in the middle of town to save money on the cost of the collection system seems kind of dumb on the face of it, considering that technically accommodating a downtown sewer plant adds tens of millions of dollars to the project, as the County's recently completed analysis (that you worked on) clearly shows.

That's WHY Tri-W had "higher costs overall" in their analysis, despite any savings that may exist by minimally shortening the collection system with a downtown sewer plant (turns out, all you had to do was add about a mile's worth of sewer pipe to the out of town, "environmentally superior," much cheaper, and MUCH less controversial sewer plant location -- the Giacomazzi site, directly "adjacent to the Andre site."

So, I'm confused? How can there be "substantial evidence in the record" that shows that "centrally locating the treatment facility within the area served" "results in the lowest cost for the collection system," when doing that -- building a sewer plant in the middle of town -- sticks the project with "higher costs overall"... by far?

Also, that second (and final) reason you give on why "an in-town site (Tri-W) was chosen over other locations" -- "It enables the treatment plant site to provide open space centrally located and accessible to the citizens of Los Osos" -- well, that's just plain weird.

Are you saying there, that you overrode the entire environmental review process for the Los Osos wastewater project, in 2001, just so the town's residents could easily get to the "picnic area" that the LOCSD designed into their downtown sewer plant?

Huh?!

Wow. You're really going to have to point to some SERIOUS "substantial evidence in the record" to support that crazy claim -- that Los Ososans demand that they not only be able to "picnic" in their sewer plant, but to also have that sewer plant located downtown so they can easily get to their sewer plant/"picnic area," even though accommodating a downtown sewer plant needlessly adds tens of millions of dollars to the project, as the county's four years of analysis clearly shows.

So... please, point.

Where's the "substantial evidence" that supports that bizarre take in your SOC?

Frankly, I don't see how EITHER of those two reasons hold a drop of water. Both of those reasons seem to make absolutely no sense whatsoever, on the face of it... clearly. Yet, your disastrous 2001 SOC appears to be the ONLY reason why the County's 2011-and-counting project wasn't built starting in 2001.... a decade ago.

Ouch!

Which brings me directly to my second question:

How did you not get paid twice -- once from the LOCSD for "acquiring all environmental permits and clearances" for the Tri-W disaster, and again from the County -- to develop the exact same project that would have resulted from your 2001 "LOCSD project," had you not overrode, with your seemingly baseless SOC, the entire environmental process for that project, for no apparent documentable reason whatsoever?



For example, in your cover letter to Paavo Ogren, in your 2006 contract, you write, "Our firm will utilize our prior experience with this project both to help with guidance for project development, and to reduce overall costs."

O.K., great. So, with that quote in mind, why didn't you just say to Ogren, the moment you signed that $150,000 contract, something like, "You know, had I not overrode the entire environmental review process for the Los Osos wastewater project in 2001, for no documentable reason whatsoever, with a completely baseless SOC, then the correct, "environmentally superior" project that I was paid to develop at the LOCSD, is the exact same project you should use, only with a sewer plant site east of town, just like the next four years, and $8 million worth of your analysis (of which, I am going to get another fat chunk) will show"?

Why didn't you say something similar to that in December, 2006, like, you know, the moment your contract was finalized? That sure would have "reduced overall costs," yes?

Because, I have to admit, it really looks like, not only did you get paid twice to do the exact same work, but that you also deliberately created the wildly unpopular Tri-W disaster, by popping out a fake, completely unsubstantiated (and therefore illegal, according to CEQA law) SOC ("[Chris Clark] was responsible for and successful at acquiring all environmental permits..."), in a deliberate effort to create a wildly unpopular, downtown sewer plant/"picnic area" disaster, just so it'd prolong the development of a technically sound, and socially feasible, Los Osos wastewater project for Los Osos, just so you could make more money... and you did.

How is that not the case?

How did you NOT deliberately create a disaster just so you, and your firm, could make more money on the Los Osos wastewater project... which you did, on both counts: You deliberately created a disaster (the Tri-W disaster, through an invalid SOC), and then got paid again by the County to develop the same project, except with the sewer plant out of town, which would have happened in 2001, had you not popped out that fake SOC.

Thank you very much for your time,
Ron

P.S. I thought this e-mail would be of interest to my readers, so I went ahead and published it on my blog:

sewerwatch.blogspot.com

I'll be happy to publish your response to this e-mail on my blog, as well, when you reply.

Thanks again

###