I want to share with you information regarding the Stewart Street Replacement project. First, based on city records, it looks like the total cost of this project is at least a $4.5 million and could exceed $5million.
It is important to remember that the money for this project is from the 2006 Water Revenue Bonds. One of the reasons we raised water rates was to guarantee this $7million bond debt.
The 2006 City Council passed a resolution telling rate payers that specific projects had been identified by a 2005 study.* The Stewart Street Reservoir Reconstruction project had an estimated cost of $2.1 million. Where is the rest of the money for this project coming from?
The resolution told us that the bond debt was for projects “that are required to fulfill the City’s current operational responsibilities.” A 2007 Report* identified the citywide storage needs, and the need in each pressure zone. I have a chart for you based on that report. The chart reflects the two parts of our water system, with 3 pressure zones served by storage in the southeast and 5 zones served by storage in the north.
When you look at this chart it is important to remember that the 2006 Council resolution told us that the bond debt was for improvements to our existing system only and “are not driven by future development.”
I remind you that up the street from the proposed tank are 5 million gallons in Vancil reservoir. For 45 years, less than 1of its 5 million gallons has been utilized. I respectfully suggest that a project to make the piping and pumping improvements to use this storage is a more appropriate use of the bond debt. Of course we are concerned about the future, but the storage in Vancil can meet current need and provide for future development.
I remind you that the Stewart Street Replacement Project will soon go out to bid and you will be asked to authorize the signing of a contract to build 2 million gallons of additional storage down the street from Vancil reservoir. I ask, is this project an appropriate use of the money rate payers were told was for improvements to our existing system, not for projects driven by future development?
I hope the information I’m providing is useful in helping you answer that question.
* 2005 Water Hydraulic Study; Resolution 2006-25; April 2007 Preliminary Design Report
Hi Janelle,
ReplyDeleteHave you received the confidential employee investigation report on Dennis Ryan - that became a public record after DRigge said it wasn't a personnel report? One of the public works employees made a PRA request, and the report is floating all over Fortuna now - sheds light on the duplicity of both the city manager and the public works director.
This is big. Really big. it needs to get to the NCJ or hank sims, or the times standard.
Thanks, for the update. I was at the meeting when the public works employee spoke. I think the employee also told the Council that the City Manager was planning to spend more time at Public Works. Mr. Rigge was not asked, nor did he respond to employee's comments.
ReplyDeleteAnd so I knew about the PRA request and was wondering what the response would be. Glad to hear the City responded by making it public.
As a general comment I would remind you that the City Manager hires, fires, and is responsible for the actions of all City Department heads, but I believe the City Council has to approve department head dismissals.
The email for NJC and Time Standard are on their web sites. Jessica Cejnar has been covering Fortuna City gov for the TS lately. I think Hank Sims' email info is on his site, lostcoastoutpost.com. And don't forget the Beacon. I'm sure they'd like to hear about it from someone who has seen it.
Thanks again for the heads up.
I believe that will be published in the Beacon before long. NV
ReplyDeleteGood, I look forward to getting a chance to read it. When the request was made the speaker said that when Mr. Rigge met with the employees he told them only he would see it.
ReplyDeleteLet the sun shine in.