Відео

GM McElhenie, toward the end of his General Manager’s Report, about 35 minutes into the meeting, adds several items, including an EIR Addendum, that must be added to the EWS/SWF/WRF Coastal Development Permit application. None of those are mentioned in the report included in the Agenda. He says the consultant SWCA INC can assemble the required material in 45 days, at which time the CDP application will be submitted to the county. That targets the end of August.

Under the Consent Agenda, an hour and 15 minutes in, the June Expense Report shows various legal expenses. General Manager McElhenie said he would keep the public informed of the costs of the recent dispute with Coast Union School Board. In June, he acknowledged over $54,000 in legal expenses thus far. Is that correct? In June, District Counsel Carmel got an additional $6,000 for additional legal advice, over and above his $13,500 monthly retainer. Rutan & Tucker got $34,937. Was that for advice on the CUSD well dispute? GM McElhenie reports $69, 461 to Rutan &Tucker; Tim Carmel $20,000 in June, plus $5,73, ballpark $94,000, so far

In the Committee Reports, starting about 1 hour 33 minutes, in the PROS Report, Facilities &Resources Manager David Aguirre mentions working with biological consultant Kevin Merk. What is the status of Mr. Merk’s biological studies, which were due two years ago, and Mr. Green promised in June? When can the public expect to see these long overdue studies, which are a crucial element of the EWS/SWF/WRF Coastal Development Permit application, which remains incomplete?

The board discussed changing the board’s meeting schedule, from two meetings a month to a single, six-hour, all day meeting. Perhaps monthly oversight of the district’s ongoing projects is adequate. Projects such as the Stuart Street tanks, the San Simeon water and effluent lines, the Sustainable Solutions Turnkey projects at the Wastewater Treatment plant, water meter replacement, and the Coastal Development Permit application for the EWS/SWF/WRF aren’t usually urgent and can be managed monthly. When an urgent issue arises, however, the board should have the best quality on-line access for public participation. Those meetings, at which significant action may be taken, should be archived in a logical and convenient way for the public to consult. Please require that AGP Video provide the live streaming and video recording and archiving for all board meetings. No decision.

In the Consent Agenda, about one hour and five minutes, the July Expense report includes $329,711.96 to Western Alliance Bank, the twice-yearly payment on the non-functioning, unpermitted EWS/SWF/WRF. Director Farmer noted that the district is now halfway to paying it off.

Thanks to Director Farmer for calling out the EWS/SWF/WRF salaries in the budget hearing about 31 minutes, $142,000 for two employees for a facility that is not operational. Later in the meeting, Administrative Manager Denise Fritz warns about deferred maintenance in the district. The board should consider applying that money to the district’s maintenance needs.

In the Utilities Report at about 1:41, Utilities Manager Jim Green doesn’t mention of the EWS/SWF/WRF Coastal Development permit application, or the required Kevin Merk biological reports. Green used to promise the reports for June, but those promises disappeared in July. General Manager McElhenie previously promised that the CDP application would be ready to be submitted to the County by the end of August. At the August 8 meeting, Director Farmer asked for the missing biological reports to be placed on a future agenda.

Fire Chief Mike Burkey explains how both the district’s fire engines were out of service at the same time, during fire season, in the Fire Chief’s report about 18 minutes in. He didn’t volunteer a report on this situation, but was prodded into it by Director Farmer. Burkey says it’s common among emergency services.

PUBLIC COMMENT Back in 2021, the Policy Committee began discussing a Climate Policy for Cambria. Committee member Ted Key wrote a thoughtful draft, to which others made comments, Director Michael Thomas chimed in with his thoughts. The board in its wisdom decided that the Resources & Infrastructure Committee was a better setting for this discussion, and sent it to R&I instead of Policy for formation. There it effectively died for the past three years./ Although the board expressed some reluctance about adopting a climate policy at the time, their position changed when District Engineer Ray Dienzo informed them that having a climate policy was a requirement for many grant applications. Thus writing the policy was shuffled over to R&I. R&I Chair Karen Dean says a draft will be considered at the May 13 R&I Committee meeting. The current path forward is for R&I to send it to the board for you to discuss, then send it back to the Policy Committee, which will work on it, and then send it back to you for final discussion and approval. This three-year saga sounds like a lack of sufficient determination to write and adopt a climate policy. How long do you expect it to take to shuffle it from one committee to another, and commit to a substantive climate policy? Has lack of such a policy delayed infrastructure grant applications, as Mr. Dienzo said? I ask you to get serious about adopting a climate change policy for Cambria. Thank you.

7.D The Resources & Infrastructure Committee's Report, pages 42-45 of the Agenda, written by Director Karen Dean, reports that Fire Safe Focus Chair Dave Pierson presented a report on the proposed biomass, wood chip, co-generator. PUBLIC COMMENT This kind of project was proposed in 2018, and took up a lot of meeting time until it was disclosed that the technology was not yet functioning. All Power Labs, the same company, did not send a representative to the meeting. Cambria may have more wood chips than the community can use, but it does not have enough to fuel a biomass co-generator, unless they plan to log the entire forest. Let’s not fall for this a second time. Biomass generators are not carbon neutral. They are greenhouse gas emitters. This is why Cambria needs a Climate Policy! Please read “Burning Trees: As the Biomass Industry Grows, Its Carbon Emissions Go Uncounted,” therevelator.org/biomass-emissions-uncounted/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR3bIEl_WIV3ydFGRdVa0u5tJYcIzg_m3TsreqCLVd0uhLV-ALhEus3Mhlo_aem_AULuLJVUew0dLn8nCBx5ESywmlBnDCjqD8WXua3k8llzo1V2Bk1ukSTVSLj8vruNjUstpUk_TmoPLkTbo2ytOuSA

7.C In the PROS Committee's Report, pages 40-41 of the Agenda, was written by Director Michael Thomas. PROS members prefer to continue reading written comments aloud at meetings. Vice Chair Shannon Sutherland asked for monthly updates on the progress of the East Ranch restroom. The prefabricated building, with a base cost of $371,000, was ordered in April, with delivery anticipated in 240 days, which puts it into December. Except something happened, and delivery is now postponed until maybe the end of January 2025. Thanks, PROS, for keeping tabs on that. In a cost-cutting move, the district eliminated janitorial services for the district’s restrooms, adding that cleaning job to Facilities & Resources staff. F&R staff now reports that they will not meet the July 15 deadline for weed abatement on district-owned lots. Sounds like misplaced priorities there. PUBLIC COMMENT Eliminating the professional janitors who cleaned the restrooms cleaning and adding those chores to F&R staff is misplaced. F&R Manager Aguirre reported that the staff will not meet the district’s July 15 deadline on weed abatement for district-owned lots. Giving Mr. Aguirre an award is nice, but doesn’t compensate for adding to his department’s responsibilities. Please re-hire the professional janitors and allow Facilities & Resources staff to get on with their weed abatement work. By the way, poison oak is growing over the bridge on Main Street near the Old Grammar School. Whoever has responsibility for this, it’s on Cambria to make this sidewalk safe for the public. This requires special handling. I talked to a young mother walking her baby over there. She did not know what poison oak looks like and had no idea what she was brushing past.

The Finance Committee report also notes that “Mr. Pierson raised the question of whether the proposed surplus in the Administration Fund was legitimate in light of the Prop. 218 rule that expenses allocated to Administration from Enterprise Funds had to be limited only to the cost of providing administrative services. Ms. Fritz said recording the surplus has been the usual practice, meant to cover future overhead costs.” PUBLIC COMMENT At that same meeting, David Pierson raised a question about the transfer of $253,000 from Water to Admin. It’s a questionable, possibly illegal, transfer. Please investigate this transaction and discuss it in public at the June 13 board meeting. The recent board decision to borrow $680,000 for the water meter project rather than pay for the meter project out of more than $2 million in reserves was also poor judgment. The rationale was to invest the Water Fund reserves rather than spend the money on district improvements. The slight difference in interest rates between the loan and the investment return is negligible, even acknowledged by Denise Fritz. I question whether there was any financial advantage, adding in the $12,500 loan fees. This is a service district, not an investment fund. The money in the Water Fund is there to pay for water improvements. Driving the district further into debt rather than managing income for service improvements is a dubious path. Please consider the wisdom of these financial decisions. Thank you.

Item 7A PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. McElhenie, in his narrative of this Agenda Item, states that funding for the EWS/SWF/WRF project was approved by ratepayers. Perhaps he is unaware, but ratepayers never approved funding for this project. The board approved funding, in a meeting at which many ratepayers objected to it. You can review that August 4, 2014 meeting through the resources of AGP Video, which makes Cambria’s past meeting easy to access through its archives. Well worth that $3,720 a month!

7.A Public Comment on Water Reclamation Facility Coastal Development Permit Application, with possible board action to submit it to County Planning, pages 110-342. A big step in the process of getting a permit to operate the plant 24/7, at the district’s discretion. It’s got some discrepancies that the county may want to examine. The Agenda Item notes that future costs are undetermined. Those costs, however, would be substantial: constructing the Zero Liquid Discharge plant, trucking brine, operating the plant. Although not involved at this county application level, Coastal Planner Devon Jackson of Coastal Commission staff raised the question of coast as an environmental justice issue, see below. McElhenie disputes the Coastal Commission’s jurisdiction over cost issues, noted in the email exchange between them at the end of this advance. So there’s a stumbling block at the start. Cost should be of concern for Cambrians. Potential costs are in the millions. Two new transformers were installed during construction of the existing plant. What is the estimate for power use? How much will it add to Cambria’s $50,000 monthly bill? The Project Description continues to include future “existing commitments.” [The Coastal Commission does not recognize any “grandfathered” connections, per its decision in Hadian, 2021, documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2019/11/W32e/w32e-11-2019-report.pdf ] This has been the sticking point in past CDP applications. If the Project Description were limited to existing connections, the project would have a better chance of getting a permit approved, as explained by Paavo Ogren back in 2019. The Brine Storage Treatment and Disposal section, pages 127-128, is confusing. If the untested Zero Liquid Discharge technology works, it will cost millions to implement. If not, it will cost millions to store and truck the brine waste away. This application pushes those issues to some undetermined future date, but Cambrians and the board may want to confront these prospects now. The Adaptive Management Plan included is the proposed plan from 2017. Its recommendations for establishing baselines were not carried out. This AMP was based on Cleveland Biological’s inadequate wildlife observations - Is that unsigned note about lack of the promised future report on page 288 from McElhenie? The district contracted with Merk & Associates to get the work done in 2022, but that contract was not carried out, purportedly because the scope of work was expanded to include Van Gordon Creek. Was any work done? The public didn’t get any reports. Utilities reports state that work is “ongoing,” and a completed report is due in June. That biological information needs to be included in this application.

Item 6A PUBLIC COMMENT Let me draw your attention to a couple of items on the Expenditure Report. Mr. McElhenie is advocating for cost cutting of the $3,720 for AGP recording and archiving of board meetings, and $1,275 for professional janitors to clean the public restrooms. Both these responsibilities would be assigned instead to in-house staff, as the restroom cleaning already has been. That $5,000 a month is dwarfed by other district expenses: legal bills amounting to over $30,000 last month, nearly $50,000 for the usual PG&E bill, and over $14,000 in Confidential Professional Consulting and Coaching. AGP’s professional video and audio services are not easily replaced by staff members who lack expertise and training. Professional janitorial services keep the restrooms presentable for visitors, and allow Facilities & Resources staff to focus their energies on important district properties. Please consider reducing pother expenses before cutting these important services. Thank you.

The committee used district equipment, "test driving" it as President Gray said, for future board meetings, replacing AGP Video. This is not a good idea. It will reduce public access to board meetings. I strongly oppose ending the district’s relationship with AGP. AGP does an excellent job of broadcasting, recording, and archiving board meetings. AGP's posts also provide the meeting agenda and timelines to the meeting, tying meeting times to agenda items. Searching for the board discussion of a particular item is tedious and time-consuming without this feature. Eliminating it is not acceptable. AGP offers reliable professional audio and video services. This is a significant value to public information and district transparency. The money spent on AGP is well spent for good value. Do not lose this important community benefit. I encourage the board to continue recording and archiving board meetings with AGP. Thank you.

May 16 2024 Public Comment The Resources & Infrastructure Committee voted to forward to the board a proposal to apply to PG&E’s EV Fleet Program, to assist the district with constructing charging infrastructure and purchasing electric vehicles. It is set to be presented to the board at the June 13 meeting. I ask the board members to study this carefully before the meeting and decide against applying for it. PG&E is not your friend. You pay them around $50,000 a month for power. Of course they want you to continue that, and even pay them more. John Oliver on his program characterized PG&E as The most hated public utility in the country, I’ll send you the link. ua-cam.com/video/C-YRSqaPtMg/v-deo.html PG&E has pleaded guilty to numerous criminal charges and paid millions in fines because of its irresponsible behavior. The district recently found paying the local school district $26,000 a year an outrageous amount, and reasoned that the district should have owned the land it leased over the years for its payments. You are paying PG&E $50,000 a month, and you aren’t even getting stock in the company. A few thousand dollars waving at the district in the form of rebates should not distract you from longer term improvements that will ultimately relieve the district of those hefty monthly payments. Instead of signing up for more, get started converting the district to solar power. Solar panels technology is constantly improving. Solar power incentives have been reduced, thanks to lobbying by PG&E and other utilities. That’s what your participation in this program will support: not clean energy or fewer greenhouse gas emissions, but PG&E working against climate crisis progress. I applaud Mr. Green and Mr. Reaper for championing electric vehicles. I expect that they have benefitted from the experience of installing the EV charging station, and the next one will go more smoothly. PG&E’s negative public presence and corporate malfeasance are well documented. Take the time before the June 13 meeting to study this program, and how it will affect the district’s finances and climate change commitment. And don’t get involved. Thank you.

Item 5C, Utilities Report: In the SST Update, the report notes that the new plant generator has been approved and ordered, and will be here in 48 weeks or so. I marked my calendar! Can we know more about this? It sounds like a major piece of equipment. What is it, how much did it cost, were there competitive bids? How does it fit into the WWTP improvements and the SST program? Thanks.

On another issue, I remind Mr. McElhenie that he assured the public at last night’s NCAC meeting that he will itemize the legal expenses for the CUSD well negotiations, mediation and Eminent Domain action.

From April 11 meeting Item 6B San Simeon Water and Wastewater Alignment: I raise a question as to the board’s action to transfer its decision-making authority on the alignment to General Manager McElhenie and Utilities Manager Jim Green. This decision was not among the possibilities mentioned in the Agenda Item. Mr. McElhenie presented it as the result of a meeting with State Parks representatives Dan Falat, Doug Barker and Katie Drexhage the previous day. The argument that State Parks will make the decision, which staff members will accept, thus making board involvement irrelevant, is not the way the alignments are presented in the Agenda Item. Rather than a problem, this is an opportunity for the board to develop its relationship with this important state agency. While I certainly agree that this project is urgent, it is also important to make the best selection for all involved parties and environmental considerations. Removing oversight in the cause of expediency is unjustified and risky. The pipe burst in 2021. Staff has had two and a half years to reach out to State Parks and resolve the access issue. Suspending oversight procedures risks serious infrastructure and environmental miscues in a project that will serve Cambria for many years to come. It’s important to get it right. I encourage the board to revisit this decision and include board members in the decision-making process and review and approve the final choice.

Thank you for allowing comments.