Welcome to the Public Works Department blog on the Los Osos Wastewater Project. The intent of this blog is to give the community an additional opportunity to participate in the County process as we begin to transition from project development to construction. One of the most important issues in implementation is addressing affordability and reducing the financial impact of the project for the residents of Los Osos.
Understanding and addressing affordability issues has been a primary objective since AB 2701 transferred the project to the County. We have reached out to funding agencies, federal and state representatives, and other stakeholders in an effort to bring awareness to the project and highlight the need for collective action.
Our efforts have provided a solid foundation for a funding strategy that should lower projects costs from the original estimate of $200* per month. The drop in cost will be a result of the following events:
• The State Water Board broadening the definition of “Disadvantaged Community” to incorporate criteria which includes Los Osos. This allows the project to apply for extended term SRF financing.
• Our efforts on Proposition 84 Integrated Regional Water Management grant funds have us poised to receive regional funds. The project is the highest ranking unfunded project in the Central Coast region.
• The project has the highest rank on the state’s Project Priority List for SRF funding.
• The $35 million dollar authorization in the Water Resources Development Act is still available for federal appropriation.
• Congress providing a USDA population waiver for access to stimulus funds.
Without question, our most significant accomplishment occurred on October 21, when President Obama signed the Fiscal Year 2010 Agriculture Appropriations bill into law. This bill contained a very important provision for Los Osos, which provides a population waiver and allows the County to apply for stimulus funds in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The funds are part of the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development (USDA) wastewater loan/grant program.
Over three billion dollars were allocated to the USDA and approximately one and a half billion remains unspent. We have been in close communication with the USDA and have agreed that the County will submit an application for $80 million. The funding amount is anticipated to be $64 million in loan and $16 million in GRANT. Yes, GRANT! We are excited about this opportunity and must remind everyone that Congresswoman Lois Capps, Congressman Kevin McCarthy and Senator Diane Feinstein were instrumental in obtaining the USDA population waiver.
Over the next few months we will update this site with information on the project and where we are on funding applications and authorization. We invite the community and funding agencies to participate in this interactive experience by commenting and asking questions.
John Diodati
*The $200/month figure includes the monthly equivalent of the property assessment, utility bill, and general benefit portion of the capital cost. The property owner on-lot cost is not included in this figure, which will range in cost due to such variables as septic tank location, property slope, etc, but has been estimated to be $50/month.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Mr. Diodati and members of the Project Team,
ReplyDeleteThis is Aaron Ochs from The Razor.
While it's tremendous in that we've made so much progress as far as having Congress allow Los Osos to submit a USDA population waiver, but wouldn't these potential cost savings (at around 21%) be negated by the possibility that Los Osos taxpayers will likely have to pay for all the spending (the additional budget adjustments) on top of the $7 million that was initially budgeted for the WWP?
Can you also educate the public briefly on what the USDA money is based on? Mr. Diodati, you said a few weeks ago that the USDA wants the County to request money for a fixed amount of one of the project components. If you could elaborate a little more about what the USDA is looking for specifically, I'd greatly appreciate it.
Hello John,
ReplyDeleteWould you please explain why vacuum collection was never studied during the county's $7MM study of "alternatives?"
Also, would you explain how the money which was spent on a "lobbiest" impacted upon the grant and "anticipated" loan? What is the "anticipated" rate and fees if any, for the loan?
I love that the county has decided to begin web logging!
Aaron
ReplyDeleteWe agree with you that it is tremendous that Los Osos has received bi-partisan support from Capps, McCarthy and Feinstein in the 2010 Ag Appropriations Bill and that staff of USDA is indicating support for $80 million in funding for the project. Obviously the stimulus bill was in nobody's plans when the County started working on the wastewater project and so it is welcomed news. As an aside, our cost estimates also included some significant inflationary assumptions from the bids in 2005, so the current competitive bidding environment might also help produce cost savings if we can get construction underway in 2010. We are hopeful that the project will not be delayed by litigation or other actions and that a combination of grants and good bids could help significantly on addressing affordability. It has always been our objective to move the project forward, in the midst of its many challenges, and now is the time to take advantage of the opportunities that exist.
You also expressed a concern that the savings could be negated by the possibility that Los Osos would have to pay for the costs that the County has paid so far on project efforts, including budget adjustments. In reply, the costs that have been incurred are certainly part and parcel with the project, and yes all projects pay for all costs even when the County provides up-front financing. The County is essentially only at-risk of not getting reimbursed if the project does not proceed; however, we believe it will proceed. The final action on November 24th to modify condition #97 is a great example of how far we have come, and anyone who contrasts the comments from Coastal staff early in 2009 versus the Commissioners appeal after the Board action on September 29th should be able to recognize that the County's decision making process has developed significant consistency with Coastal Commission comments, which is a good indication that we may soon be able to move forward. In conclusion, the costs incurred so far have always been reimbursable once the project moves forward, and the $7 million expended is less than 5% of total estimated project costs, which is not unreasonable considering the size and complexity of the project.
Regarding the USDA funding, it is part of the Rural Utilities Program. This program has existed for a long time and one that I worked on while employed by USDA. It is a valuable resource for small communities and we have used the program with loan and grant for Santa Margarita's water system improvements. In that case, we upgraded water lines to provide residential fire flow protection, should be constructing a new storage tank next year, and have additional funding for a drought reliability program.
Watershed Mark,
ReplyDeleteVacuum collection was analyzed in the Rough Screening Report, where dedicated vacuum was eliminated as a viable alternative. However, a gravity-hybrid system using vacuum or low pressure was deemed feasible, which means vacuum technology may still be used in certain parts of the community if proposed by the bidding firms. The report can be found here:
http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Assets/PW/LOWWP/document+library/RoughScreeningReport.pdf
The Administrative Office of the County hired The Ferguson Group, a federal lobbyist firm, for countywide funding efforts, which included assistance on the wastewater project. The firm did assist the project team in requesting the population waiver in the appropriations bill, however, the lobbyist has not been involved in discussions with the USDA regarding funding amounts, nor has the lobbyist been funded by the project. The USDA discussions have been, and will continue to be at the staff level. The term of the USDA loan will be 40 years and the interest rate will be somewhere around 4%, which will help reduce monthly costs. We will not know the final interest rate until the loan amount is obligated.
Thank you project team for creating this venue.
ReplyDeleteAnd have a Happy Thanksgiving season.
---------------------------------------------
Glass half full - \~/
Glass half empty - \~/
\~/
Glass over-engineered for the amount of water
I see I will be posting as Sewertoons as that is who I am with Google. I am also known as Lynette Tornatzky.
ReplyDeleteThank you for creating this convenient place to ask questions, I will be spreading the word to my friends so that they will know about it.
I'll chime in with Alon to say Happy Thanksgiving to County staff . I am thankful for your patience and upbeat attitude during this long and difficult process.
Thank you Public Works Department for recognizing "communication" matters. I know that it is crucial in business, that is, if it doesn't evolve into dull, mind-numbing corporate-speak.
ReplyDeleteWith respect to " *The $200.00/month figure".
Does said figure include taxing vacant lots in the PZ zone as if they were buildeable?
If so, is the proposed plant designed to handle the waste from an additional 800 or so homes?
For this BLOG to be successful and meet its goals, (Example; Info about affordability to the Community) you are going to need to promote it to as much of the community as possible. When you are ready, you will need to clearly link to it from the LOWWP website, in appropriate locations in links, and in the area about “Affordability” links. Are you announcing in the print media yet?
ReplyDeleteOtherwise you will get a mixture of Cognisati and Sewer dilettantes, rather than “Community”.
I also suggest finding a way to highlight your responses ( “PROJECT TEAM RESPONDS”…or indenting etc…I don’t think I’ve seen it as a capability in Blogspot)
Again, thank you for creating this venue.
Fogswamp,
ReplyDeleteGreat questions. We are developing a response, and they may become the subject of our next blog post. Please stay tuned...
Thanks project team for your willingness to respond to Fogswamp’s questions. Please include in additional response to fogswamps question ” If so, is the proposed plant designed to handle the waste from an additional 800 or so homes?”, the following;
ReplyDelete Current estimated population in and out of PZ, and number of dwellings.
Projected build out, population and dwellings, in and out, including out of PZ expected hookups to sewer.
Within groundwater basin for the above.
Current and projected Populations served by the ISJ (CSD, PUC regulated purveyor, Housing association purveyor, County) Vs populations agricultural and residences on private wells.
Tall order, I know, please answer fogswamp's core questions first.
I see links are provided and may had been there prior to my previous posting. The imperative to make this Blog available to all Los Ossans remains.
dorla sent spam!!!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOoops,,,, thought they had spell check, sorry, I sound pretty stupid, later.
ReplyDeleteAlan Perman writes"Otherwise you will get a mixture of Cognisati and Sewer dilettantes, rather than “CommunitY" to late I found it Alan, and seems a little negative, just because one can type does not make him better or smarter then another man." I'll stop and get on with the issue,,,,"Without question, our most significant accomplishment occurred on October 21, when President Obama signed the Fiscal Year 2010 Agriculture Appropriations bill into law. This bill contained a very important provision for Los Osos, which provides a population waiver and allows the County to apply for stimulus funds in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The funds are part of the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development (USDA) wastewater loan/grant program." I guess he was a good pick for Los Osos. We need sub cities, (tiny little condoes built on the vacant lots), for the old and retired people, even two hundred bucks a month will force them out, which by the time we get the bill, it will have been stepped on so many times by people needing to make a buck anyway they can, (like the old CSD)and the current starving population of California,, that the bill will look like street crack from south central.! More to follow.
ReplyDeleteHow come no one has posted on here in three months? And where's the spell check and the thumbs up or down, green or red? What's up, this is the new San Luis Obispo County right?
ReplyDeleteMaybe I'll post a link in easy ad or transfer the trolls from Cal Coast News to here. Gravity what goes up must come down and during a black out you don't have a brown out!
Hello John,
ReplyDeleteThe report you offered as an "analysis" of vacuum does not detail the reasoning used by your "no bid" consulting engineer.
As you actually begin to move forward and "accept" the project you may find that ythe opinion/reasoning used to "eliminate" vacuum in the rough screening may be bias at best and flawed at worst.
As you begin to realize that the money to fund wastewater projects is not as available as it was when your engineer dismissed vacuum technology, it may become clear that it is time to do more with less.
I look forward to watching your process unfold, from a hobby point of view, at this time and will excercise the records request option on order to expose every invoice from beginning to the end of your project. Putting those documents on line will serve to help the people paying for your "public purse" activity will have the ability to "click on by" to keep an eye on just how the money is being spent.
The reason(s) for the $7M that your department is responsible for spending thus far may become more clear as you ramp up. Time will tell and remember Los Osos may be the most studied and watched wastewater project in the country.
Question, In light of the current economic climate, why aren't you willing to do a more fair study/review of vacuum collection?