S.S. TAC, Taking on Water! Time to Abandoned Ship?

All of a sudden, I've got another bad feeling about the "Technical Advisory Committee" that SLO County officials pieced together to help them figure out the Los Osos sewer situation.

Apparently, some "Advisors" from that "Committee" are not so familiar with their own documents.

For example, in a recent post on Ann Calhoun's excellent blog, TAC member, Maria Kelly, wrote:

"Whatever the county will be able to offer us, in my opinion, isn't comparable to the old mid town site project."

The "the old mid town site project" Kelly refers to, is the failed, "bait and switchy" Tri-W project -- a project that also included a multi-million dollar public park that dictated the sewer plant's central location, and, due to that central location, added over $35 million to the project.

In her post, Kelly adds, "If the old mid town project went to bid now - it would be significantly lower."

Here's where my confidence in the TAC gets rocked.

As I also, of course, first reported, Kelly's own committee released a report last year that officially outlined how the "bait and switchy" Tri-W project was a complete embarrassment.

The report did not have ONE positive thing to say about the project, and a WHOLE LOT of bad things.

The following is a copy-and-paste from my original story. I went into the TAC's Pro/Con Analysis, and boiled down all of the quotes involving Kelly's "incomparable" project -- the "bait and switchy" Tri-W project... a project that the pre-recall LOCSD Board spent over $20 million developing from late 2000 to late 2005, when they were finally recalled... for spending over $20 million... developing the "bait and switchy" Tri-W project.

Here's the Pro/Con Analysis' take on the Tri-W project. This is great:

- - -

- "(Tri-W's) downtown location (near library, church, community center) and the high density residential area require that the most expensive treatment technology, site improvements and odor controls be employed."

and;

- "It has high construction costs..." ($55 million. The next highest treatment facility option is estimated at $19 million.)

and;

- "Very high land value and mitigation requirements"

and;

- Tri-W energy requirements: "Highest"

and;

- "Small acreage and location in downtown center of towns (sic) require most expensive treatment"

and;

- "higher costs overall"

and;

- "Limited flexibility for future expansion, upgrades, or alternative energy"

and;

- "Source of community divisiveness"

and;

- "All sites are tributary to the Morro Bay National Estuary and pose a potential risk in the event of failure. Tri-W poses a higher risk..."

and;

- "NOTE: It was the unanimous opinion of the (National Water Research Institute) that an out of town site is better due to problematic issues with the downtown site."

and;

- "ESHA – sensitive dune habitat"

- - -

All of that is found in the TAC's OWN report, and TAC member, Maria Kelly, just recently wrote, "Whatever the county will be able to offer us, in my opinion, isn't comparable to the old mid town site project..."

The TAC's own document states, "NOTE: It was the unanimous opinion of the (National Water Research Institute) that an out of town site is better due to problematic issues with the downtown site," and Kelly writes, "Whatever the county will be able to offer us, in my opinion, isn't comparable to the old mid town site project..."

Think about that.

Is she saying that she's right, and everyone from the National Water Research Institute, a board that was chaired by George Tchobanoglous, Ph.D., P.E, and one of the most respected waste water experts in the world -- is wrong?

Is Kelly saying that if she had been a part of the National Water Research Institute, they wouldn't have come to an "unanimous opinion?" That, "whatever" the county comes up with, it will never "compare" to the "old mid town site project" -- the same project that her own document shreds to pieces?

Furthermore...

Kelly wrote, "If the old mid town project went to bid now - it would be significantly lower (in cost when compared to other potential projects) "

The TAC report states that the Tri-W project -- the "ol' mid town project" -- has "higher costs overall," and, "It has high construction costs..." ($55 million. The next highest treatment facility option in the report is estimated at $19 million. [NOTE: That $36 million difference is the EXACT figure I discuss, when I first reported, of course, that whatever the cost difference was between an in-town facility, and an out-of-town facility, was the price for the park in the project. And now we have an official answer to my question: $36 million bucks, at least! By the way, Julie Tacker, as a LOCSD Director, read my letter, verbatim, out-loud, video-taped, at a public meeting. All nice and time-stamped-like.)

In conclusion...

How can the people of Los Osos be expected to have any confidence in the judgement of the county's Los Osos Waste Water Technical Advisory Committee, when one of its most visible members publicly writes "opinions" that are the exact opposite of what their own reports show?

###