Saturday, October 25, 2014

Hey, the OTHER "More than 4,000" Los Osos Property Owners, Did You Get YOUR Refund Check from the LOCSD?


So, a few weeks back, a little source-elf emails me a seemingly boring, yet, upon further review, extremely interesting document.

It's something called a, "Debtor's Claims Register," from the Los Osos Community Services District, and it's a list of people and companies that filed a claim (and either got paid, or didn't) in the District's bankruptcy proceedings over the past few years.

Now, I know what you're thinking: "How in the world can a boring government document called a, "Debtor's Claims Register," from the Los Osos Community Services District, be considered, in any way, 'extremely interesting?'"

Well, here's how:

If you look at that document closely (it's only six pages, so it goes pretty fast), you'll notice that there are numerous (about 80) claims from individual property owners, that are in the $2,000 - $6,000-ish range, and, almost all of those claims would go on to be rejected.

For example, according to that document, former [recalled] LOCSD Director, Gordon Hensley, filed a claim for "$6,511.76," however, under the category, "Objection Status," it reads, "Objection sustained," and then under the "Final Claim Amount" category, it reads, "$0.00," which means Hensley didn't get a penny of his claim, due to some sort of "objection" by the District.

And that's exactly how it goes for almost all of those same type of individual Los Osos property owner: $2,000 - $6,000-ish range claims: "Objection sustained," "Final Claim Amount: $0.00," over and over and over again.

However, and here's the weird/interesting part, seven of those exact type of claims were NOT "Objection sustained," "Final Claim Amount: $0.00."

For example, one of those seven is, "Hans & Pam Langfeldt," and under their "Objection Status" category, it's blank -- no "Objection sustained" -- and, then, under their "Final Claim Amount" category, it reads, "$3,299.06."

Same with Lenora Gentry, "Final Claim Amount: $3,299.06."

Frank Merrill? "$4,950.93."

John & Vivian McNeil? "$6,395.48."

Richard & Paulette Staley? "$3,464.01"

Cal & Rosemary Wilvert? "$3,299.06."

Mr. & Mrs. C.D. Mussey? "$3,299.06."

And it's just those seven, out of about 80 of the exact type of claims, whose "Final Claim Amount" category has a dollar figure in it, and no "Objection sustained."

Gets better.

After reviewing the "Debtor's Claims Register," I sent the District a public record request for a copy of the processed check between the LOCSD and "Hans & Pamela Langfeldt."

What they sent me is interesting.

It's a full page of the District's checks that were made out to various people and companies in February, 2014.

And, sure enough, one of those processed checks?:

"PAY TO THE ORDER OF: Hans & Pam Langfeldt," DATE: 2/5/2014, "AMOUNT: $1,353."

Same with Frank Merrill, Lenora Gentry, etc.

So, apparently, there's another interesting twist in play here: The seven claims that were NOT "Objection sustained" (for reasons heretofore unknown) in the "Debtor's Claims Register," when it came time to cut the actual checks for those claims, the amount ended up being far less than the "Final Claim Amount" from the "Debtor's Claims Register."

For example, Frank Merrill's "Final Claim Amount" from the "Debtor's Claims Register," was "$4,950.93," and he ended up getting a check for "$2,030.00."

Now, I have no idea why that discrepancy exists, but I'm just going to chalk it up to some confusing bankruptcy-settlement type thingee. (Maybe the District will be cutting Merrill another check in the future for the balance? I don't know, but if I ever find out, I'll post it.)

But, there it is, clear as day: The Los Osos CSD, earlier this year, cut checks to just seven property owners, and NOT to the 70-something others that filed an official, and similar, claim found in the "Debtor's Claims Register."

So, why?

I recently asked Keith Swanson, from the LOCSD Finance Committee, "Why did the District issue those checks to those people?"

And, he told me, "... the checks were part of the bankruptcy. Issued to those who pre-paid their (2001) assessment."

And there's my (usual) SewerWatch bombshell.

You see, back at this link (from about a year ago):

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2013/05/junk-bonds-twice-year-fleecing-of-los.html

... I exposed how "more than 4,000" property owners are STILL paying that exact assessment that those seven got (partially) refunded, and those "more than 4,000" property owners will continue to pay it until the year 2034.

Gets better.

As I also (fairly) recently exposed, at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2013/11/los-osos-makes-property-tax-history.html

... that 2001 assessment -- that SOME Los Osos property owners got (at least partially) refunded, while the vast majority didn't -- is going towards "paying" for a now-miserably-failed, non-sewer-project, that will never exist, and because "more than 4,000" Los Osos property owners are now stuck paying, until the year 2034, for a public works embarrassment that will never exist, Los Osos has made property tax history.

That situation -- where property owners are stuck paying (for the next 20 years) for a public works disaster, that will never exist -- has never happened... anywhere. [I asked numerous sources, and the standard response is, "I've never heard of this before," and I've Googled the heck of it, and I can't find another instance. YOU try to find somewhere else where that situation exists. At least Boston's "Big Dig" fiasco eventually got built. But, the 1999 - 2005 LOCSD's mid-town-sewer-plant/"picnic area" disaster, that they wasted 7 years and some $25 million "developing," and that MOST Los Osos property owners are now stuck paying for, for the next two decades? Uh, not so much, of course.]

So, there you have it: The unbelievably fascinating situation currently in Los Osos, California: SOME property owners getting a refund on their 2001 sewer assessment, while the vast majority of Los Osos property owners are now stuck paying that exact same assessment for the next 20 years, for a public works embarrassment, that will never exist, and thus, have made property tax history in the process.

Journalistically speaking? Doesn't get much better.

And THAT's the story of how a boring document titled, "Debtor's Claims Register," is "extremely interesting."

###

[10/26/14: Just a quick addendum:

I meant to include in this story the following, 9/2/14, email I sent former [recalled] LOCSD Director, Gordon Hensley:

- - - - - - - -
Hello Gordon,

Howya been? Long-time, no email, eh? ; -)

Hey, real quick, I was just looking over the LOCSD's "Debtor's Claims Register," from the bankruptcy settlement, and I noticed on page 2 that you filed a claim for "$6,511.76."

I'm just curious, what was that claim for? Why were you saying that the LOCSD owed you "$6,511.76?"

By the way, throughout that 5-page document, there are numerous individual Los Osos property owners that filed claims in the $3,000 - $6,000 range, however, the vast majority of those claims, like yours, were "Objection sustained," and then "$0.00" was paid to the "Creditor."

However, seven others, like Lenora Gentry ("$3,299.06") on page 2 (highlighted) were NOT "Objection sustained," and they, apparently, got a check from the CSD.

So, now I'm wondering why your $3,000-$6,000-range claim was "Objection sustained," and you got "$0.00," while only seven others in that exact $3,000 - $6,000 range (including Lenora) got paid every penny of their claims.

So, you know, what were you claiming? Maybe it was different from what the other seven were claiming, and that's why you didn't get paid.

However, if your claim was similar to what the other seven (that DID get paid) were claiming, well, that doesn't sound too fair to you... and all of those other "Objection sustained" $3,000-$6,000-range claimers. I mean, why did Lenora (and six others) get paid, and you guys (what looks to be about 100 of you) didn't?

Do you know the answer to that question?

As always, much thanks,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hensley, never replied, of course.

I also sent LOCSD General Manager, Kathy Kivley, this email on 10/16/14:

- - - - - - - -
Hello Kathy,

I'm researching a story, and I just have a quick question involving the District's 2.28.14 Statement, where the LOCSD cut checks to:

Lenora Gentry, $1,353

Hans & Pam Langfeldt, $1,353

Frank Merrill, $2,030

John & Vivian McNeil, $2,622

I'm just curious, why did the District issue those checks to those people?

Was it for different reasons, or for the same reason?

Thanks!
- - - - -

Kivley never replied, of course.]

11 Comments:

  • Ron, just send you two emails at both email addresses. Let me know if they come through.

    Hmmmm, refunds, eh? Wonder if you'll get an answer to this most interesting question.

    By Blogger Churadogs, at 7:51 AM, October 28, 2014  

  • Got 'em Ann : -)

    As far as refunds for the OTHER "more than 4,000" of you, well, that'd be a question for the CSD.

    I see that Lou Tornatzky is running for a seat on the CSD Board. Maybe he has a take on the subject.

    Boy, talk about a great stump speech: "If I'm elected, I will get you 'more than 4,000' OTHER property owners your $1,000 - $2,000 refund checks, too! I mean, why should Pandora's friends be the only property owners to get a refund on her Tri-W disaster?"

    He'd get my vote!

    Although I do find it kind of strange that the guy who wanted to dissolve the LOCSD a few years back, is now running for a seat on CSD Board.

    That's kinda funny.

    Gotta love those Tornatzkys. They're all over the map.

    "I want to be elected to the same governmental agency that I spent a massive effort, and tons of money, trying to 'dissolve.'"

    HIGH-larious.

    That reminds me: LAFCO actually having to sue Taxpayers Watch, in 2007, to get back the money they wasted on that laughable/"strategic" attempt to dissolve the LOCSD, is also HIGHlarious.

    Ah, Lou, Lou, Lou. You're funny.

    By Blogger Ron, at 10:03 AM, October 28, 2014  

  • Above, I write:

    "I see that Lou Tornatzky is running for a seat on the CSD Board. Maybe he has a take on the subject."

    Well, I took my own excellent advice, and mailed the following to Lou this morning:

    - - -
    Hello Lou,

    I just read on your web site (Lou4LOCSD.com):

    "If you have questions about me and where I stand on various issues, please email me during the campaign. I pledge to get back ASAP."

    Thank you for the offer, and, yes, I have quick question.

    On my blog, I recently exposed how the LOCSD cut Tri-W assessment refund checks to seven prohibition zone property owners.

    http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/

    Here's my question: If you're elected, will you support cutting refund checks to the OTHER "more than 4,000" LOPZ property owners that are stuck paying that exact assessment for the next 20 years, for a now-miserably-failed, public works embarrassment, that will never exist?

    Or do you think it's fair that only a tiny handful of LOPZ property owners got a refund on that disastrous assessment, while the vast majority didn't, and now, they're stuck paying it until the year 2034?

    Thanks!
    - - -

    Now I'm curious to see his definition of "pledge," and "ASAP."

    By Blogger Ron, at 12:33 PM, October 28, 2014  

  • Toonces: I'm missing something here.If you pre-paid the assessment, why would you get anything back when, as you say, you were still getting mitigation, land, plans etc.? Seems like they'd still "owe" for those items since the rest of us are still paying for those items.
    Or did all the rest of us get a small prorated "discount" on the annual amount that was so small nobody noticed?

    I'm still curious about how that worked and why I doubt anybody in town knew anything about it. And apparently the CSD STILL has no clue what that was all about.

    Surely Lou can find out if he gets elected to the board. It shouldn't be some weird secret deal so there's got to be a simple explanation as to why, who and how.

    By Blogger Churadogs, at 5:21 AM, October 30, 2014  

  • Because SewerWatch is a "behavior based marketing"-free zone, the people posting as "Sewertoons" have been banned from commenting here, and therefore I deleted their comment. (I gave them a "heads-up" weeks ago, that they are no longer allowed to comment here, so, I guess they enjoy wasting their time.)

    However, because Ann already commented on 'toons' comment, here's the quote from 'toons that Ann's referring to:

    "Ron, those checks went to people who pre-paid. No idea why all prepaids did not get $$ back. Those who did not prepay pay on their tax bills. We did get mitigation land and plans in-town for gravity collection pipes."

    See? Total bullshit. Who gives a fuck if, according some anonymous blog comment loser, LOPZ taxpayers got "mitigation land and plans in-town for gravity collection pipes," (which isn't even accurate, of course) the question is WHY did just some LOPZ taxpayers get a refund, while the vast majority did not?

    Ann writes:

    "I'm still curious about how that worked and why I doubt anybody in town knew anything about it."

    Well, as for the reason why nobody knew anything about it, that's because the only "news" sources "serving" Los Osos are the worse-than-nothing, Trib, the worse-than-nothing New Times, and the worse-than-nothing Bay News.

    And here's where I always pop in with: "Thank god for blog technology!"

    As for still being "curious about how that worked and why," that's what I hope to answer in follow-up posts.

    By Blogger Ron, at 9:45 AM, October 30, 2014  

  • And, oh yeah: I also now have Lou's definition of "pledge" and "ASAP."

    It's been three days since he "pledged to get back ASAP" to my email, and he hasn't, of course.

    By Blogger Ron, at 9:51 AM, October 30, 2014  

  • Ann said:""I'm still curious about how that worked and why I doubt anybody in town knew anything about it."

    And Ann still wonders why nobody seems to want to talk about this or knows anything about it. Even people who should know. Nothing you've reported here indicates any illegality -- the thole deal was presided over by a bankruptcy judge -- so if nothing was illegal, why the reticence? The why and how of it should be an easy explanation. Like what, in the law, allowed certain people to get a partial refund on an assessment abut not others who paid the exact amount? Why was that option kept quiet? Simple questions like that. Surely somebody on the bankruptcy committee knows about this?

    By Blogger Churadogs, at 5:46 AM, November 01, 2014  

  • Ann writes:

    "Nothing you've reported here indicates any illegality -- the thole deal was presided over by a bankruptcy judge -- so if nothing was illegal, why the reticence?

    Fascinating, isn't it? What a GREAT story.

    So many unanswered questions. A question I have is: What was up with those 80 "I want my Tri-W assessment back" claims, in the first place, even the ones that didn't get a refund check?

    Doesn't that stink of some sort of coordinated effort to deliberately bankrupt the CSD? I mean, did 80 individual LOPZ property owners, just, on their own, say to themselves, "Hey, I have an idea. I'm going to file a claim in the District's bankruptcy to get my Tri-W disaster assessment back?"

    I don't think so, which means, that that those 80 claims were, almost certainly, coordinated by people like Pandora, and the recalled Directors, like Gordo -- just ANOTHER part of their twisted, post-recall scorch-earth-the-CSD-into-bankruptcy-and-then-blame-the-bankruptcy-on-the-post-recall-board "strategy" ("fine out of existence," Dissolution, etc.)

    Some seriously twisted puppies.

    Another HUGE question I have is: Why is it that only the PRE-paid Tri-W assessment types are entitled to some sort of refund?

    Why are the OTHER "more than 4,000" LOPZ property owners, including you, Ann, expected to just keep paying for that failed disaster... for another 20 years?

    I mean, what in the hell is going on here? And NO ONE, including LOCSD candidate, Lou, who "pledged" to respond to my email "ASAP," is saying a word about this over-the-top interesting situation.

    Of course, off the top of my head, I can think of one EXCELLENT reason for the official "reticence": IF the "more than 4,000" OTHER LOPZ property owners DID get a similar refund, well, that'd be what?... some $4 - $8 million that the District doesn't have, which means it'd push the District BACK into bankruptcy, which was Gordon's and Pandora's twisted "strategy" all along. Well, mission accomplished... twice!

    This story is friggin' great (journalistically speaking, of course).

    By Blogger Ron, at 10:20 AM, November 01, 2014  

  • Ron writes: "Doesn't that stink of some sort of coordinated effort to deliberately bankrupt the CSD? I mean, did 80 individual LOPZ property owners, just, on their own, say to themselves, "Hey, I have an idea. I'm going to file a claim in the District's bankruptcy to get my Tri-W disaster assessment back?"

    Indeed. I sure don't remember hearing so much as a whisper about this, certainly no public notice, zip, zero. And, yeah, why wouldn't everyone paying for this assessment also qualify for some kind of "rebate."

    Most intriguing story. Especially the secrecy of it all. Somebody knows the whole rationale but apparently they ain't talking and that begs the question: Why?

    By Blogger Churadogs, at 6:48 AM, November 03, 2014  

  • Ann writes:

    "Somebody knows the whole rationale but apparently they ain't talking and that begs the question: Why?"

    And that's exactly what I hope to get to the bottom of in subsequent posts.

    Stay tuned! : -)

    By Blogger Ron, at 9:10 AM, November 04, 2014  

  • Ron, where have you gone! I need updated, factual info on what's been going down as I watch from afar. Not to mention, I miss the drama! ;)

    By Blogger Sewerjunkie, at 10:27 PM, September 05, 2015  

Post a Comment

<< Home