Opinion: $1,287,500 for recreation: use it or lose it!

Comment 1 by Charlie Gardner  on  Jun 26  at  6:07pm  •  All my comments • 

Paul,

I suggest until such time as MWSD can provide enough water to lift the moratorium, provide homeowners with failed wells access to water, and enough storage for fire suppression, that you continue to use the money for exactly what it is meant, "a portion of your 1% property tax money offsets costs of your water and sewer service".

I believe consolidation of our Districts would provide an opportunity to focus on the needs of the entire Coastside community.

Spend the money on water and sewer. My vote is that you start with water. Spending it on other community needs is like wasting money on desalinsation studies, please become more proficient at what you are chartered to do before spending my tax money on ventures that will only provide you an excuse for not supplying us with enough water.

Charles M. Gardner Resident of Montara

Charlie's comment completely sidesteps the "move it or lose it" issue which Paul described. The Legislature has been explicit that they are going to keep trying to steal our local property tax money until they succeed.

There are only two choices: either we do nothing, lose the local property tax money, and raise sewer rates in GSD and sewer and water rates in MWSD, or we shift the tax money over to the desperately needed parks and recreation services and raise the sewer and water rates.

Either way, the sewer and water rates will go up by the same amount. That's unstoppable. There is no third possibility, even though Charlie tries to pretend that there is. But if we act quickly we could hold on to the local property tax money by shifting it to parks and recreation services in GSD and MWSD.

Charlie's suggestion to keep using the MWSD property tax money to subsidize water and water infrastructure simply cannot be maintained much longer due to the Legislature's stated intent.

For Charlie, it's obviously more important to push the over-development group's goal of undermining local control via consolidation than to keep a large amount of money local and use it to providing a desperately needed service.

And by the way, shifting the property tax money as suggested does not in any way preclude consolidation in the future.

Comment 3 by Charlie Gardner  on  Jun 27  at  12:22am  •  All my comments • 

Leonard,

When an infill lot is "developed" under our existing PUD ("Planned" Urban Development) zoning, and has to install a well because the district cannot supply an adequate source of water, to me that is just plain wrong.

If consolidation undermines your version of "local control" maybe its time for other locals to control. The "use it or lose it" scenario comes into play only if the tax money is not properly applied. Offsetting the costs of water and sewer service is an appropriate application.

There is no doubt of the need for recreational services, however that is not within the sphere of influence of a couple of water and sewer districts that are already financially burdened with the task of providing water and sewer. There is no sense in trying to take on recreation as well, you have enough on your plate. Shift the money only after adequate services are rendered in your chartered domain.

Charles M. Gardner Resident of Montara

Adequate services are being rendered by MWSD. It is misleading to suggest additional ready water sources exist when they don't to anyone's knowledge. Consolidating away the MWSD and thus moving the district out from under the control of a responsible board is a developer's pipe dream, nothing more. So LAUGHCo voted for it. Yawn. How surprising.

Because it is now the only government the citizens of Montara and Moss Beach can call their own and the only government directly responsible to those citizens, I'm all for the MWSD covering as many of our community needs as possible. It's a sure thing the county supervisors don't care much what happens to us, and the consolidated districts that would dissolve the MWSD away are a farce, given the HMB-centered districts with which we would have to combine.

I'd like to know more, however, about what the MWSD would do with any parks and recreation money before getting behind district expansion into that area. I see Paul's reasoning, but it is built on maybes. Parks and recreational facilities can be just as destructive of community and environmental values as any other kind of development if not handled sensibly--the main reason I voted against the vague blank check of Measure O and the possible money that might have gone from it to what I see as a misguided county P&R effort in our area.

Charlie, pardon me, but what the heck are you talking about? Please identify where on the coastside anything zoned PUD has been developed in recent memory, if ever. And on a well?

And thank you for your statement

If consolidation undermines your version of “local control” maybe its time for other locals to control.

You have finally come out in the open with what I've been saying all along: Most of the coastsiders pushing consolidation are simply unhappy with the current GSD and MWSD boards and think that they will be able to get themselves elected to the consolidated board(s).

Here's an exercise left to the reader for the moment: How many pro-consolidation people in the unincorporated Midcoast were unsuccessful candidates for local office? (An easier question is how many anti-consolidation people are current or former elected officials? Hint: lots.)

There is one consolidation that I'd readily support: Incorporation of a new coastside city stretching from Medio Creek in the south to basically 1st street on the north edge of Montara. That consolidation could easily include rolling up GSD and MWSD into the new city. But oddly enough (or not!), nearly all of the pro-consolidation people seem to be against that version of consolidation and local control.

PUDs have been more of a device of the City of Half Moon Bay, so maybe mention of them shows where someone's affinities lie? Here is one bit of an update on property in PUDs there: http://www.cdelmarrealestate.com/PUD_Lots/pud.htm

Leonard, Charlie Gardner squanders OPM - Other Peoples Money: Wavecrest New Middle School! Supports wrong headed agendas: AB 1991 and Foothill STREET. Remember PCF-CCF or whatever the laughing stock is called? If he is for it - it must be wrong!

Ken Johnson

Comment 8 by Charlie Gardner  on  Jun 27  at  11:01am  •  All my comments • 

Typical sniping. If you don't like the message, attack the messenger.

The house across the street from me was developed on an infill lot and had to put in a well (not enough water).

The tunnel project my company is currently constructing has enough water coming out of the mountain to relieve the moratorium. What has MWSD done to make that available? Restrict it to fire suppression in the Tunnel only.

Most level headed people will recognize that we need to plan long term for our water needs. We have a real and present danger with conflagration (fire), couple that with drought and we're in big trouble. Connectivity from the north and south, coupled with a real development of local water sources is our only solution. What is the current plan if we have a severe drought and run out of water? Have it trucked in? That's no plan, that's crazy!

In this instance I'm concerned about how my money, and my fellow citizen's money is being spent.

Comment 9 by Paul Perkovic  on  Jun 27  at  12:48pm  •  All my comments • 

Charlie,

Perhaps you can answer the questions that Jim Larimer is afraid or unable to answer on TalkAbout. They are important questions that must be answered before deciding on a large project to use water from the Devil's Slide Tunnel.

I've added a few more because you are an expert on Kiewit's operation, on the tunnel water source, and on water supply issues (you ran for the MWSD Board a few years back, I'm sure you did all your homework about water issues then).

What is the reliable yield of water from the Devil's Slide Tunnel? (Jim Larimer claims 1,000 gallon per minute, but feel free to give an accurate number; we know that is a wild guess unsupported by facts.)

What are the contaminants that must be removed through treatment prior to serving this water in a public drinking water supply?

Is the yield seasonal, or continuous throughout the year? If the yield is seasonal, does the high yield period coincide with MWSD's high demand period (e.g., summer), or is it in the middle of the rainy season when we don't need additional water?

How does the yield vary during drought years?

How can drainage water from the mountain be obtained before it is contaminated with oils, exhaust, tire rubber, trash, and other vehicle residues?

How is Kiewit doing on meeting the requirements of its NPDES permit to detain, retain, or treat water from the tunnel to prevent contamination of the ocean during construction?

With your vast experience on getting construction projects designed, permitted, and built in the Coastal Zone (including all the CUSD projects that have been successfully completed), what is your opinion of the time required for initial design, environmental work, hearings, appeals, litigation, and final approval, plus detailed engineering design, circulation of bidding documents, bid approval, contract award, construction, and approval by the California Department of Health Services, of a pipeline project and treatment plant to make use of the water from the Devil's Slide Tunnel? (Don't worry that the tunnel itself took over 40 years - we all know that was an unusual case. Don't worry that CCWD's El Granada Pipeline project is not finished yet, even though it is a part of the Crystal Springs Project that was begun more than 25 years ago. Some projects take longer than others.)

Based on your experience as an engineer, what is the overall project cost, including environmental work, permitting, design, construction, etc., for the treatment plant and pipeline?

Who do you expect to pay for it? You just posted that you want your tax money to pay for current expenses. Do you want rates raised to underwrite projects to serve new development?

Do you think your neighbors want water rates raised to underwrite new development?

Why has CalTrans failed to respond to efforts by MWSD to obtain more details about possible water from the tunnel?

As a long-time MWSD Board Member, I'd really appreciate the answers to those questions so I can make an informed decision on how to proceed.

Comment 10 by Paul Perkovic  on  Jun 27  at  12:57pm  •  All my comments • 

Charlie Gardner writes: "The house across the street from me was developed on an infill lot and had to put in a well (not enough water)."

Do you live in Miramar or El Granada? Why are infill lots within Coastside County Water District's area being developed on wells?

(Hint: Not enough water.)

According to the Midcoast Municipal Service Review staff report, there are about a thousand sewer customers without public water service outside of MWSD's boundaries. That puts them in CCWD's boundaries. Why is CCWD unable to meet the water needs in its own territory?

(Hint: Not enough water.)

At the CCWD Water Supply Workshop yesterday (June 26, 2008), it was reported that CCWD used up almost all of its SFPUC water allocation in 2007. CCWD already has outstanding obligations to serve more than 1,500 pre-sold Crystal Springs connections. How is CCWD going to serve those customers, especially during a drought when SFPUC supplies may be cut back?

(Hint: Not enough water.)

What is CCWD's water supply plan?

(Hint: Let them build, and when the drought hits, let them cut back usage by 25%.)

Incidentally, this topic is about recreation. Maybe we can start a new topic on Devil's Slide water and move these comments into that topic.

That will make it easier for everyone to find your answers.

Comment 11 by Charlie Gardner  on  Jun 27  at  1:32pm  •  All my comments • 

Paul,

You are the President of MWSD and do not have the answers to the questions you pose? I would expect more.

Since I am at work right now, give me a little time and I will respond with what you request to help you make a more informed decision.

(Assuming you are serious enough to do something with it.)

Charlie

Comment 12 by Charlie Gardner  on  Jun 27  at  2:02pm  •  All my comments • 

OK Paul I found a couple of minutes, hopefully this will help:

The current yield of dewatering from the tunnel is in the range of 25-50 gallons per minute.

The contaminents that need to be removed are similar to those found in drinking water wells.

The current treatment plant in place is designed to handle a combined flow with stormwater of 600 gpm with upgradability to 850 gpm. Last time I checked MWSD was producing in the neighborhood of 350 gpm?

The drainage is intercepted prior to any physical contaminents, and to my knowledge Kiewit has complied will all NPDES permits. Caltrans has some very stringent rules and a redundent system is nessasary.

Yield will vary during drought, since we're in one it will most likely go up.

A small package plant can be installed to treat the water to public standards in the neighborhood of (how much "use it or lose it?) about $1 million bucks. A pipeline can be installed to tie-into the existing system for about another $3 mill (2 years of "use it or lose it?) Add on the cost and time for no-growth obstructionism citing the damage to the highways environment and you can add another $3 mill and 5 years (about what was added to the El Granada pipeline).

The point here really is connectivity to Pacifica to the north. We can add 15-20% capacity of locally produced water, have flexibility to obtain Hetch-Hatchy water from the north (and south with a connection to CCWD water (which by the way, has connectivity to pump from Crystal Springs), and we wouldn't have to rely on some "plan" to bring trucks over Devil's Slide or 92 in an emergency.

I hoped this helped you, now I am going back to work.

Charlie

Comment 13 by Charlie Gardner  on  Jun 27  at  2:04pm  •  All my comments • 

Oh, by the way Paul, you asked, "Why has CalTrans failed to respond to efforts by MWSD to obtain more details about possible water from the tunnel? "

Perhaps you can supply some documentation where MWSD has actually requested water from the tunnel.

Paul,

Charlie Gardner wrote that "current yield of dewatering from the tunnel is in the range of 25-50 gallons per minute." For comparison purposes, to see how many house it would support, what is the current yield for a residential well?

Ken Johnson

Charlie, you have not addressed the fact that we can either shift the property tax money now and raise rates or lose the property tax money and raise rates. I'm still waiting to hear a cogent argument for not doing the shift.

Also, you mentioned development in a PUD, I responded that there hasn't been any, and you responded "The house across the street from me was developed on an infill lot and had to put in a well (not enough water)." If I recall, you live in Montara. I'm not aware of any PUD zoning in Montara. Infill of an ancient subdivision is not at all related to PUD zoning.

Charlie wrote "There is no sense in trying to take on recreation as well, you have enough on your plate." First of all, GSD is doing quite well. (I know that some naysayers think otherwise, but that discussion should go in a separate thread.) I'm simply amused by the people who think that GSD (or MWSD) can't do more than one thing well. There are many many government agencies which handle multiple local municipal functions. They're called cities., although there are quite a number of CSDs doing multiple things. I'm dumbfounded at the idea espoused by a few here that a city can juggle multiple priorities and do them properly but a special district can't. There is simply no basis or justification for that claim -- it's just rhetoric to justify a certain government structure that those people want to push.

Comment 16 by Paul Perkovic  on  Jun 27  at  6:48pm  •  All my comments • 

My apologies for responding to the Devil's Slide Tunnel water issue here. I realize it was off topic, and have submitted a new article to Coastsider, which should appear soon.

Please hold any MWSD and water-related comments for that story.

Just to correct one of Charlie Gardner's misreadings of my initial posting, MWSD only receives about $237,500 per year in general property tax revenue, which is currently applied to offset costs of operating the water and sewer systems.

As noted, there is no guarantee that Sacramento will not take those funds away from us this year; certainly the long-range outlook is bleak. So to build a $7,000,000 project would take about 30 years worth of those property tax funds, if sewer and water rates were increased as well.

Historically, CCWD, GSD, and MWSD were apportioned approximately $2,000,000 per year from general property tax revenues. Already, Sacramento has diverted about $800,000 of that money to help schools. Sacramento will find other worthy causes - this year it was almost the prisoner release program - until we are left with nothing.

"Charlie, you have not addressed the fact that we can either shift the property tax money now and raise rates or lose the property tax money and raise rates. I’m still waiting to hear a cogent argument for not doing the shift."

Before Charlie hijacked the topic, I had hoped to read a discussion of achieving local recreation funding that might benefit all - especially the children!

Ken Johnson

I support alternative number ONE. Voluntarily re-allocate property tax funds to Midcoast recreation uses is an excellent plan.

As a homeowner in Moss Beach I have become increasingly frustrated with the lack of funding resources available for Midcoast community Parks & Recreation programs.

The Midcoast desperately needs Parks & Recreation funding!

We need the following ASAP:

Pocket Parks with Community Gardens Community Center Bike & Pedestrian Trails Ball Fields

The County has not made Midcoast Parks & Recreation a priority and is not expected to anytime soon.

It's time the Midcoast use some of our property tax dollars to fund Parks & Recreation locally.

Sabrina Brennan