- Home
- News
- Opinion
- Letters
- Sports
- Prospecting
- Essentials
- Obituaries
- Real Estate
- Comics
- Gallery
- Classifieds
- Advertisers
- Coupons
- Contact Us
Share Article
880
224880224
EXTENDING AND WIDENING Rock Crusher Road will provide access to three canal sections. Map courtesy EID
Syblon Reid, which has done most of the El Dorado Irrigation District’s big construction projects recently, was outbid by Excavating Engineers Inc.to do a major reconstruction of Rock Crusher Road. The company is based in Bonsall near Oceanside.
The winning of bid of $1.187 million was approved on a 4-0 vote of the EID board Sept. 10. Director Alan Day was absent. Syblon Reid bid had bid $1.4 million. The higher amount was a result of Syblon Reid being “quite busy,” according to EID project engineer Daryl Noel.
The road widening, grading and aggregate base will provide access to Flume 41, a 600-foot wooden section that is scheduled for replacement with concrete flumes in October 2013 along with replacement of Spillway 23.
The road project will save the district from having to spend $1.5 million in helicopters to haul supplies, equipment and concrete flume sections into the work site. Helicopter services are $12,000 an hour.
The 6,230-foot-long road will use 400 feet of the historical Ogilby Grade. Turning radiii will be widened, rock outcroppings removed, dirt surfaces covered with compacted aggegate base and geotechnical fabric. Additionally, an equipment bridge will be built to span the canal from the spur to the canal bench for a permanent all-weather crossing.
Along with $77,000 for geotechnical services from Carlton Engineering, $14,500 of contracted engineering services and capitalized district costs for engineering, inspection and environmental staff of $149,000 the entire project totals about $1.5 million.
The road will also provide access to Flumes 42-43 and 44, slated for future replacement.
Director George Osborne said the road improvement will “open this up for fire protection.”
“I think this is an outstanding project to cut down on helicopter costs, if we have a a heavy winter and slide, this will gain access,” said Director George Wheeldon.
The Mountain Democrat does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy
Phillip VeerkampSeptember 20, 2012 - 12:18 pm
Great! Here is more grist for the Greg Prada disinformation mill to grind into grey, gooey goop. Just what we need, Mike Raffety, thanks! NOTE TO EID CUSTOMERS: - EID's (our) water conveyances are complex, costly and challenging due to terrain, geology, weather and sheer length and breadth of our service area. Suck it up and be grateful for our relatively pristine water source and sweet tap water.
fedup localSeptember 20, 2012 - 2:27 pm
Mr Veerkamp, of course we are glad that nature & location have given us a “relatively pristine water source and sweet tap water". And undoubtedly you are correct that water conveyance is "complex, costly and challenging". We get it. We also get it that, having worked for EID, you are better positioned to appreciate the complexities and difficulties of water delivery than many/most of us. I, for one, am good on the delivery part of it. I turn on my tap, and out comes the water. Happy customer!!! But some of us wonder about EID’s financial health. I’m a novice and don’t pretend to comprehend the detail of EID’s recent audited report. However, several pieces of information do stand out. (1) EID’s liabilities exceed their assets by $41 million. (2) Interest payments last year were $14.5 million. (3) In 2011 the District transferred $6 million from reserves to a retiree benefit fund. (4) In the past 10 years the population served by EID has increased 11%; by comparison, total debt increased 260%. Should the public be concerned about any of these things? And is EID’s proposed $60 million additional debt financing a good idea – or, are there any possible downsides?
fedup localSeptember 20, 2012 - 3:22 pm
Significant 5th point: At 12/31/2011 EID's long-term debt stood at $373.2 million. (Full report here: @ http://www.eid.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=2296)
Not heard on mosquito roadSeptember 20, 2012 - 5:40 pm
With all the money EID "saves", why are water rates Board-approved to surge 102% from 2010-2015? If EID REALLY is "saving", shouldn't ratepayers be getting a refund?
fedup localSeptember 20, 2012 - 5:58 pm
My guess is that DEBT is front, right and center.
Phillip VeerkampSeptember 20, 2012 - 7:32 pm
fedup local/nhomr - Thank you, fedup, for your tip-of-the-hat to my bona fides. Allow me to reciprocate and salute your concern over EID’s fiscal state. Can we stipulate that you and I are conversing in good faith and each of us searching for good information? Fine. In the conversationLINK HERE between Greg Prada myself and commented on by yourself you will find that I effectively and in my opinion conclusively disposed of two of Mr. Prada’s assertions. I am not alone in debunking challenging Mr. Prada and his “fixeid” website. LINK TO - Paul Raveling writes,FIXEID distortions, misrepresentations, and falsehoods are obvious to those with full knowledge of EID business, but not obvious to most members of the public. This is because FIXEID uses a quantity of research that should be adequate, but it lacks valid understanding of research findings. Instead it substitutes stubbornly held prejudices. This is perpetuated in part by FIXEID members' refusal to communicate with others who they perceive as not agreeing with them. This section of sierrafoot.org is now accumulating reviews of FIXEID's roughly 300 various assertions of failure in EID. To date ALL such assertions that I have checked have been either totally or partially wrong. It should not be surprising that a public agency is more competent at its own business than is a small outside group of self-appointed advocates. FEDUP, inquiry into EID’s fiscal situation is an honorable and worthwhile endeavor. Sadly, Greg Prada seems neither honorable nor worthwhile because of his predictable eruptions of recycled disinformation.
Phillip VeerkampSeptember 20, 2012 - 7:37 pm
Fix link(I hope) . . . In the conversation LINK HERE between Greg Prada myself . . .
fedup localSeptember 20, 2012 - 8:41 pm
Having looked at FixEID.org as well as Paul Raveling's material I must state that I remain insufficiently informed to draw any conclusions. For the moment, only two points. 1) My comments (above) were quite apart from material found at either website. They concerned EID's financial health, questions that came to me after perusing the District's most recent financial statements. 2) It's a mistake - in my opinion - to attribute motive to others in conversations such as this. That is something we are in no position to determine, ESPECIALLY having never met them. It would be more productive, instead of demonizing them, simply to allow for differing perspectives and experiences.
phillipe de bunkSeptember 20, 2012 - 11:58 pm
Why is Phillip Veerkamp so angry? As one of those EID retirees getting $53 million of pensions and medical benefits he should be one happy camper.
fedup localSeptember 21, 2012 - 10:55 am
Useful to know – Since 2003 most EID debt has been funded by Certificates of Participation (COPs). In that year COPs funded 63% ($165,8M) of total debt. In each of the years ‘09, ‘10 & ‘11 COPs funded 93% ($367.9M, $364.9M & $358.0M respectively) of EID debt. So what’s the point in pointing this out? The point resides in understanding the advantage of COP debt finance. Utilizing this debt financing instrument FREES MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS OR GOVERNMENT ENTITIES FROM RESTRICTIONS ON THE AMOUNT OF DEBT THAT CAN BE INCURRED DURING THE COURSE OF THE PROJECT.
fedup voterSeptember 21, 2012 - 11:11 am
Addendum - The % debt EID funded by COPs prior to 2003 = ZERO
Phillip VeerkampSeptember 21, 2012 - 12:45 pm
INFORMATION LINK - CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION
fedup voterSeptember 21, 2012 - 1:37 pm
EXCELLENT resource document. Thanks. A few notes lifted from it - the (above linked) 2000-2001 Santa Barbara Grand Jury Report. 1) COPs can be issued by a vote of the [governing body] rather than requiring a vote of the residents of the County. 2) Proposition 13 (1978) had increased the required voter approval for bond debt from a simple majority to a two-thirds vote, and governments found this increased approval percentage quite difficult to obtain. 3) Debt obligations can be created by a simple majority (3-2) vote of the [governing body] if COPs are approved during the budget cycle (a 2/3 vote is required if outside the budget). 4) COPs are a method of leveraging public assets and borrowing all or a portion of the value of a public agency’s equity in those assets in order to finance other assets. 5) COPs, being tax-exempt leases, contain a nonappropriation clause. This means that , the present-year government’s action does not bind succeeding ones to pay the obligation. 6) The COP approval process does not require any public notice beyond that provided by the normal agenda process. 7) THE GRAND JURY FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION: The general public is not sufficiently aware of the process involved in the issuance of COPs or the extent to which the County has used them in the past. [Governing body] should generate greater publicity for all proposed COPs financing, and hold public hearings at several locations throughout the County to justify the need and rationale for the use of COPs as opposed to alternative financing strategies.