Comments on: RMWD considers financing options for pipeline http://www.ramonasentinel.com/2013/01/11/rmwd-considers-financing-options-for-pipeline/ Ramona's Community Paper Since 1886 Wed, 19 Jun 2013 19:36:36 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.3 By: Mike Loranger http://www.ramonasentinel.com/2013/01/11/rmwd-considers-financing-options-for-pipeline/#comment-625404 Mike Loranger Wed, 16 Jan 2013 21:30:32 +0000 http://www.ramonasentinel.com/?p=20348#comment-625404 Continued from above: 6. What I am am confused about is as the planning for the improvements for the San Vicente Road has been ongoing for 15 years, and the pipe is due for complete replacement in 2023, shouldn't the movement of this pipe have been better anticipated financially speaking? 7. Finally, on November 15, 2012, Mr. George Foote, a newly elected member of the RMWD wrote an opinion piece for the Ramona Sentinel stating his opposition to the San Vicente Road improvement project, with his title as Division 5 representative at the bottom of the opinion piece. With the timing of these RMWD news articles claiming everyone's rates must go up, could someone from the district explain to me, for the record, whether Mr. Foote's views are his own, or do they represent the views of the RMWD? Continued from above:
6. What I am am confused about is as the planning for the improvements for the San Vicente Road has been ongoing for 15 years, and the pipe is due for complete replacement in 2023, shouldn't the movement of this pipe have been better anticipated financially speaking?
7. Finally, on November 15, 2012, Mr. George Foote, a newly elected member of the RMWD wrote an opinion piece for the Ramona Sentinel stating his opposition to the San Vicente Road improvement project, with his title as Division 5 representative at the bottom of the opinion piece. With the timing of these RMWD news articles claiming everyone's rates must go up, could someone from the district explain to me, for the record, whether Mr. Foote's views are his own, or do they represent the views of the RMWD?

]]> By: Mike Loranger http://www.ramonasentinel.com/2013/01/11/rmwd-considers-financing-options-for-pipeline/#comment-625403 Mike Loranger Wed, 16 Jan 2013 21:29:56 +0000 http://www.ramonasentinel.com/?p=20348#comment-625403 Continued from above: 4. At that time, the RMWD staff recommended the more expensive alternative because of the benefits to the district; the water line was 38 years old (2011) and the service life is estimated at 50 years, and because of this the RMWD staff agreed the district would have to replace portions in 10 to 12 years, they would need to duplicate excavation and other costs. 5. At that time, The RMWD agreed that by partnering with the county, the water district would save millions for such requirements as CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act), traffic control, construction management, bonding, mobilization and insurance. Continued from above:
4. At that time, the RMWD staff recommended the more expensive alternative because of the benefits to the district; the water line was 38 years old (2011) and the service life is estimated at 50 years, and because of this the RMWD staff agreed the district would have to replace portions in 10 to 12 years, they would need to duplicate excavation and other costs.
5. At that time, The RMWD agreed that by partnering with the county, the water district would save millions for such requirements as CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act), traffic control, construction management, bonding, mobilization and insurance.

]]> By: Mike Loranger http://www.ramonasentinel.com/2013/01/11/rmwd-considers-financing-options-for-pipeline/#comment-625402 Mike Loranger Wed, 16 Jan 2013 21:28:46 +0000 http://www.ramonasentinel.com/?p=20348#comment-625402 I am greatly confused by this article for the following reasons: 1. At the time the pipeline was installed within the county right of way in 1973, the RMWD understood that by state law, there was a requirement that the district would eventually have to pay to relocate its water facilities when the county made road improvements. 2. The pipe was laid in 1973, making it 40 years old in 2013, not 30 years old, with replacement anticipated in ten years in 2023. Has not some money been already been put aside over time for the 2023 replacement? 3. As part of the public record, the county gave RMWD directors two alternatives. One was to relocate only portions of the pipeline alignments, at an estimate of $1.3 million. Another was to relocate all the pipeline alignments at approximately $3.85 million. I am greatly confused by this article for the following reasons:

1. At the time the pipeline was installed within the county right of way in 1973, the RMWD understood that by state law, there was a requirement that the district would eventually have to pay to relocate its water facilities when the county made road improvements.
2. The pipe was laid in 1973, making it 40 years old in 2013, not 30 years old, with replacement anticipated in ten years in 2023. Has not some money been already been put aside over time for the 2023 replacement?
3. As part of the public record, the county gave RMWD directors two alternatives. One was to relocate only portions of the pipeline alignments, at an estimate of $1.3 million. Another was to relocate all the pipeline alignments at approximately $3.85 million.

]]>