Los Osos wastewater project overruns lead to disagreements

January 2, 2014
Frank Mecham

Frank Mecham

San Luis Obispo County Supervisors voted 3-2 on Dec. 17 to pull the vote for an additional $4.3 million in overruns for the Los Osos sewer project from the consent agenda so that the public can participate in the decision.

The increases are because of pay raises, extended contracts and under estimated workloads.

After members of the public questioned why the overruns were on the consent agenda, Supervisors Debbie Arnold and Frank Mecham asked that the item be pulled.

Supervisor Adam Hill became agitated and began demeaning Mecham claiming he panders to people who regularly speak out during public comment. Mecham argued back saying he was not pandering to anyone.

Hill continued to chastise the North County supervisor while Supervisor Bruce Gibson attempted to quiet Hill.

In the end, Supervisor Caren Ray voted to continue the item because there was no rush to push funding overruns through on the consent agenda.

 


42 Comments

  1. Lynette_Tornatzky says:

    No “Reply” box under the post I quote below, so I will post here to:

    Kevin Rice 01/03/2014 at 5:30 pm
    “Actually, it was really posted on the Tribune, so don’t be pulling your victim ‘fake’ card.”

    You know, since this post makes you look bad and there is no way you could prove this was said, and I said neither of us said that, why don’t you just play smart and leave this alone?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4

  2. Moderator says:

    Various personal attacks and electioneering deleted.

    Please, less about each other, much much less.

    ! or ? moderator@calcoastnews.com

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7

  3. standup says:

    We all know Adam Hill is deranged. However, the scary part is the people who voted for him. The State hospital unfortunately is not big enough to house them.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 9

  4. kkeene88 says:

    Well, 4.3 million is going to look like a “drop in the bucket” compared to what we’re going to see in Morro Bay, once this Council gets done with our WWTP!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 10

    • mbactivist1 says:

      Don’t fall for the recaller propaganda. The Council majority did not decide the plant has to be moved inland. The CCC made that crystal clear YEARS ago, but prior Council majorities defied them and wasted millions in the process.

      In addition, the difference in costs for an inland plant and one at the beach are not nearly as great as the recallers claim. In fact, the consultants said, in their last report, that it would have cost $83 million to build the new plant at the current site, the one favored by the recallers. The estimates for building at all the sites are inflated – and the consultants have said they are so high because of “unknowns”

      Please also note that there have been lies told by at least one person trying to get signatures for a recall. He has told people that the CCC did not say we could not build the plant at the beach, next to the old one. That is absolutely false. The CCC will NOT allow building the plant at that site. To do so would violate our own LCP, our zoning, and the Coastal Act, and they are not going to let that happen.

      The recallers need to watch out, because telling such a lie in an attempt to get a signature on a recall petition is a misdemeanor according to the following state law:

      “18600. Every person is guilty of a misdemeanor who:

      (a) Circulating, as principal or agent, or having charge or control of the circulation of, or obtaining signatures to, any state or local initiative, referendum or recall petition, intentionally misrepresents or intentionally makes any false statement concerning the contents, purport or effect of the petition to any person who signs, or who desires to sign, or who is requested to sign, or who makes inquiries with reference to it, or to whom it is presented for his or her signature.”

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 13

      • Kevin Rice says:

        Don’t try to play lawyer for stuff you don’t understand.

        Read carefully: “contents, purport or effect of the petition”. Now, read it again and again until you understand it DOES NOT APPLY as you assert.

        You remind me of when Betty Winholtz lost to Bill Yates when she tried to get the entire city council arrested the weekend before the election.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4

        • mbactivist1 says:

          Mr Rice, don’t try to play lawyer for stuff you don’t understand. Read carefully:

          18600. Every person is guilty of a misdemeanor who:

          (a) Circulating, as principal or agent, or having charge or control of the circulation of, or obtaining signatures to, any state or local initiative, referendum or recall petition, intentionally misrepresents or intentionally makes any false statement concerning the contents, purport or effect of the petition to any person who signs, or who desires to sign, or who is requested to sign, or who makes inquiries with reference to it, or to whom it is presented for his or her signature.”

          Now, read it again and again until you understand.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7

      • Pelican1 says:

        More idle threats foisted upon those that KNOW the recall is the ONLY remedy.
        You’re grasping at straws Linde.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3

      • kkeene88 says:

        Bottom line is that had the WWTP project gone forward, the City would be constructing in 2014 and we would be going to tertiary treatment by 15, the way it stands with what the irons gang has done, we won’t have a new WWTP before 2022 at the earliest. Take a look at the Goleta or Crescent City plant and then tell me the Coastal Commission would prohibit a plant on the coast – I call BS.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

  5. FineWine says:

    Not sure who is more unstable Hill or the people that voted for him. The guy needs therapy and everyone knows it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 8

    • MaryMalone says:

      The thing about therapy is the person being therapized has to want to change. The therapist can’t force them to change.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7

  6. SloHeadInTheSand says:

    Follow the link and see it for yourself…. about 40 minutes and 35 seconds in….

    http://slocounty.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=1662

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4

  7. SLOBIRD says:

    “The increases are because of pay raises, extended contracts and under estimated workloads.” and yet nothing is stated about additional work needed to be performed. Obviously, this contractor is ill-equipped to enter into a contact. They knew the length of this contract and therefore should have calculated the pay raise, who and why is the contract extended and are you kidding me, they “under estimated workloads”. Someone at the County should be fired and any contract entered into at any government level (federal, state, county, city, district, etc) that is not properly calculated, whereby cutting out the competitor, should bar the contractor from doing work with the government for a period of time, say three to five years. There are legimate reasons for overruns, like adding additional work or doing an upgrade in materials, or something the agency didn’t know and therefore caused the contractor additional work. But these are called “change orders” required by the issuing agency. If the project plans are done correctly and the contractor bids and gets the bid, they should be legally held to it. This contractor is already cutting corners like dumping in the estuary to save transportation costs and yet no one is holding them accountable. We just reward them with more money because we the taxpayers will pay for it, no problem!

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 37 Thumb down 10

    • philmar says:

      The posting by SNOBIRD seems pretty much on the mark and likely the only posting so far on message regarding the issue.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  8. Lynette_Tornatzky says:

    Why is this getting press now? This happened weeks ago! Also, this cost uptick was discussed before in two separate meetings, June 18 and October 8!

    I have a clip of this exchange on my sewer blog. You will see the big outburst was NOT Hill’s! See for yourself!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4

    • MaryMalone says:

      If you would deal with the issue and not simply attack the messenger, your opinion might have more credibility.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5

  9. Pelican1 says:

    I recommend that Adam seek some sort of intervention including, but not limited to rational emotive behavior therapy and cognitive therapy.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 49 Thumb down 8

Leave a Comment