Vacant Lot Vote Legal?

The Utilities Advisory Committee of the Los Osos Community Services District got a bombshell public comment at the last period of Public Comment at Wednesday's, May 20 meeting! Sewer Watchdog Julie Tacker spoke about how she brought an irregularity to the County on the recent 218 protest vote. 

There were not enough protests to stop the sewer rate increase. But people have not given up on trying to invalidate the vote.

Julie's Public Records Request brought out the fact that approximately 500 vacant lots were allowed to make a protest vote, which as they have no house, and no sewer, no one protested. These vacant lot owners were not allowed to vote in the 2007 218 vote when we voted to assess ourselves to pay for building a sewer—to the tune of $24,941.19 per single family home. 79.67% of the properties in the Prohibition Zone voted yes, and around 70% voted. So it was a hefty YES.

These were two different types of 218 votes though. The big dollar amount needed 67% yes votes to say YES, we would assess ourselves. The rate increase type of 218 requires 50% plus one to say NO, we don't want the increase.

The figures I have showed 978 protest votes where 2,833 was the count for ballots sent out. So, if one subtracted 500 (approximately) from that count, that leaves 2,333 non-vacant lot votes. There were 978 protests. 50% of 2,333 equals 1,167, rounding up. Then add the one to get to 50% plus one, you have 1,168. So, my bad math skills compute that there should have been 190 more votes to stop the rate increase.

Anyway, this issue has gone to County legal counsel, so we will see what happens.

Los Osos Sewer Rate 218 Vote Upcoming

John Diodati, Interim County Public Works Director,* made a surprise visit to LOCAC (Los Osos Community Advisory Council**) Thursday night, November 21. He said that the County revisits the unincorporated areas' wastewater system rates every five years, but that Los Osos' rates have not been evaluated for 10 years. There is going to be an upcoming workshop in January (not sure where), then the County will come back to the community in February to discuss everything, and then in March, the 218 process will start with a Board of Supervisors item for them to give the go-ahead, and the "vote" will end in 45 days with our vote results at the Board of Supervisors.

The rates were established back in 2010 and as there was no plant then, the rates were guestimates. We have actual costs now that the plant has been running for a few years. Apparently a "cost of living" percentage was never put on our rates, so we are spending more now as the rates issued 10 years have failed to keep up with expenses of paying off the loan and running the plant.The new rates will phase in over two years with a 5-6% increase plus a cost of living percentage of 3%. Our rates are not going to be worse than Cayucos, Morro Bay and Black Lake. The rate consists of the debt repayment and O&M (operating and maintenence costs). 

I know I have been remiss of late in writing here, but I will post everything I find out on this important topic!


* During the "sewer days" he was the Grants Coordinator—the guy who helped get us the low interest USDA loan. He was the "spearhead" guy. Congresspeople (is that a word?) Lois Capps and Kevin McCarthy (a Democrat and a Republican working together - imagine that!) did the House side of the bill and Senator Dianne Feinstein worked the Senate side to get a variance for that money— our population was really too big to qualify for that USDA loan which normally is granted for a population of 10,000 (we are 14,276 as of the 2010 census).

** I'm on the Council.

Julie's Revisionist History......Again.

I am stepping into the sewer on my sewer blog to correct the misstatements of a certain retread political candidate for the LOCSD. Once again Julie Tacker is making, no, faking history to put herself in a more favorable light. This image is off her campaign Facebook page - click to see a larger image and to read the text:

Misstatement #1 - "...which District 2 County Supervisor wouldn't move the sewer in 2003 when the permits were before them?"

Nooooo. That is NOT what was before them. YOU, Ms. Tacker, were before them—on the topic of the Coastal Development Permit; you were stating that the EIR was faulty. There was no "moving the sewer" mentioned. If "moving it" was the intent, it would take an incredible amount of work to do so, actually YEARS of work, not just a meeting in front of the Board. Never mind the additional cost.

Here is a copy-and-paste right off of the minutes of the October 21, 2003 Board of Supervisor's meeting (and BTW, the EIR was certified on March 1, 2001, so as the objections and lawsuits mounted, we can already see how this was upping the cost of the project: 2001 - $81.6 million; 2003 - $93 million):

This is the time set for hearing to consider an appeal by Julie Tacker for Concerned Citizens of Los Osos and Al Barrow for Citizens for Affordable and Safe Environment of the Planning Commission’s approval of the Planning Commission’s approval of the Los Osos wastewater project, a request by the Los Osos Community Services District to construct and operate a community wastewater project to include a collection system, treatment facility plant, effluent disposal system, harvest well system and all related infrastructure, located in the community of Los Osos; 2nd District. 

Ms. Nancy Orton: Project Manager for the County, presents the staff report; outlines the location of the project; addresses the issues of the appeal; comments on drawings of the proposed sewer site; corrects Conditions #73 and #74, the beginning of the paragraph, to read: “Prior to Approving Sewer Hookups for New Construction.”; recommends adoption of the resolution upholding the Planning Commission’s recommendation and deny both appeals.

Ms. Julie Tacker: Appellant (Concerned Citizens of Los Osos), states she is representing 108 concerned citizens; believes the EIR is not complete for the proposal before the Board; urges the Board to delay or deny this request until this EIR has been completed; gives a video tape presentation of her appeal which outlines her concerns to the Tri-W site; no study being done on the impacts to the downtown businesses; concerns regarding sludge, septage, water, hydrology, drainage, ESHA (Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas), SSMP (Septic System Management Plan), economics, assessment and the conditions of approval.

Chairperson Ryan: speaks to his history with the project and in support of the LOCSD. Matter is fully discussed and thereafter, on motion of Supervisor Bianchi, secondedby Supervisor Pinard and on the following roll call vote: 

AYES: Supervisors Bianchi, Pinard, Achadjian, Chairperson Ryan  

NOES: None

ABSENT: Supervisor Ovitt 

the Board denies both appeals, Conditions #73 and #74 are amended to change the first sentence to read: “Prior to Approving Sewer Hookups for New Construction.” and RESOLUTION NO. 2003-366, resolution affirming the decision of the Planning Commission and conditionally approving the application of Los Osos Community Services District for Development Plan/Coastal Development Permit D020283D, adopted as amended.

EVERY ONE PRESENT VOTED AGAINST YOU! You are picking on Bianchi because she called it like it is: "If I lived in Los Osos, I would vote for almost anyone but Julie Tacker. She was, is, and probably always will be, a political disaster." (I'm sure she is tough enough to take the taunts from a, pardon the expression, lightweight like you.)

Misstatement #2 - "...had Bianchi and that board voted to deny the Tri-W  permits the sewer would have been out of town, contracts wouldn't have been let and a nasty bankruptcy wouldn't have ensued."

Well, let's just pick that one apart! You readers all know by now that Measure B, which stopped the sewer until it was proven in court to be invalid, was won by a slender 19 votes in 2005. What evidence was there to show there were enough votes to pass it in 2003 (not that it had been even DRAFTED then), and how else would the "community will" to move it be demonstrated if not by a vote? Look how many years it took to get to the point of selecting a location with the County's project behind the cemetery? You just assumed some magic wand could provide the location, the EIR, and the permits I guess.

You know Julie, that your board wouldn't even ALLOW a 218 vote in 2005 which would have demonstrated the community's will, you were so afraid that it would not pass, and that the sewer would then continue at Tri-W. It was put to your board by the State Water Board and you refused to do it. Don't claim it was the cost of holding a vote - how do you think there would be ANY money for ANY sewer without a VOTE? A vote this time that would involve property owners ONLY - not a "Measure-B-anyone-can-vote" type of vote?

The contracts had to be let for the project that was going to be built - you know, that one with the $134 million dollar SRF loan tied to it that your board threw away. The Water Board was serious with their threats of fines in 2003. They were serious in 2005 as you finally found out. Remember those CDOs that we can thank YOU for?

(And remember the $20 million bonds sold in 2002 to buy the property, design the project, and to pay for the permits. Those were flipped off by your board too - but not flipped off of our tax bills - they are still right on there every year.)

Setting all of that aside, let's get right on to the bankruptcy. First point, you poked a stick in the eye of the Water Board for not ASKING PERMISSION to stop the project. That was in the contract for the SRF $134 million loan. That lack of understanding ensured that your board would NOT get anymore payments from the state. Then you all went right off budget in October as soon as you were in office by hiring a new attorney, and new general manager ($450,000/year)—while you were paying the old GM and the old attorney to do nothing—AND you paid $75,000 to get rid of the public information officer. But that is small potatoes when you hired another attorney for $1.5 million! 

Where did you think the money would come from to pay for all of that? Well, we know where you found it - you took our tax money that we had paid for our bond payments, forcing the bond reserves to be spent that were to have been the last payment. Naturally, the lender raised a big stink about that, and we are STILL paying that money back! Our fire tax money had been spent too, so the CSD reserves were spent to cover us to keep our fire service.

So where did our $450,000 water reserves go? MIA. That was never paid back.  It was written off by General Manager Kivley in 2015. No wonder you went after her with a vengeance - she knew what your board did!

Anyway, your rewriting of history is always rather amazing to read. Thanks for the opportunity to set the record straight—again.