At the 7/24/08 CCSD Board meeting a detailed presentation was made on the latest studies for desal. During the meeting CCSD informed the audience that the geotechnical studies during the fiscal year will be paid for by the Army Corps of Engineers. I then asked the Board about the $1.3 million budgeted for geotechnical studies, which would now not be needed. The response from Mr. Greshens was that “they would like to keep that money for eventual desal costs”, but I was correct that it would not be needed for 2008-2009 studies.
Well, I guess that they can use some of this money for the defeated fire suppression benefit assessment expenses, some $11,000.
Do we need the rate increases at all in the face of this “surplus”?
Last 5 posts by RichDavega
- What's Happens Next on the Recent Rate Increase?
- No Water Moratorium for CCSD Attorney
- CCSD Secrecy At It's Finest
- Recent CCSD Computer Investment - Fiscally Responsible?
- Update on 218 Protest Validation
Just saw this post and thought it should come forward for everyone to re-read. Yes – we have a $1.3 MILLION DOLLAR SURPLUS now. This number was confirmed by Muril Clift at the last Citizens meeting at Rabobank on Wednesday.
Mary
We would have a $1.3 million dollar surplus ONLY IF the board went forward on the 8.1 million dollar loan and the funds previded by the Corp of Engineers covered the costs of the desal investigation at San Rosa Creek site.
If the board chooses to reduce the amount borrowed to cover a smaller Capital Improvement Project list, such as Stewart Street Tank and/or Rodeo Grounds Pumping Station then there would be no need to borrow the 1.3 million for the desal investigation. The continued desal investigation would have to be carried by the funds of the Corp of Engineers.
Mr. Greshens comments express his concerns that if the Corp of Engineers spends their investigation money on the Santa Rosa Creek site and find it unacceptable, then money will be needed to continue investigation of the San Simeon Creek site.
My hope is we will not need the 1.3 million as the San Rosa site could prove to be the best and most economical site and the Corp of Engineers funds will cover the expected costs of determining this.