The city is considering spending an additional $1.45 million to an engineering firm for the proposed centralized wastewater treatment facility in the Civic Center. Two city council candidates charge the city with short-sightedness.
By Knowles Adkisson / Associate Editor
Two city council candidates charged the city with a lack of foresight last week, after staff requested an additional, unbudgeted $1.45 million to pay for engineering services related to a centralized wastewater treatment facility in the Civic Center.
The council in Jan. 2009 approved a $2.6 million contract with engineering firm RMC Water and Environment for engineering and design services for the project. But staff last week indicated an additional $1.45 million payment needed to be made to RMC if the city is to successfully determine whether deep well injections are a viable form of storage for treated effluent.
The city faces a June 30 deadline to submit a storage plan to the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), which it agreed to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with last year to build the treatment facility.
The discussion took place last Friday at a meeting of the Administration and Finance Subcommittee (AFS), which is comprised of City Councilmember John Sibert and Mayor Pro Tem Lou La Monte and advised by City Manager Jim Thorsen. The AFS vets all large expenditures proposed for the city before they go for a vote before the entire council.
The expenditure would reduce the city’s reserve fund from $8.9 million to $7.4 million. The city could also potentially take $1 million out of a parks fund originally earmarked for the Michael Landon Community Center.
Thorsen said the item would not come before the council for a vote until May. However, he noted staff could run out of money for the project if at least a portion of the expenditure was not approved, potentially missing the June 30 deadline set in the MOU.
But city council candidates Hamish Patterson and Andy Lyon questioned why the city was having to take another $1.45 million out of the budget for the project when it already spent $2.6 million in 2009.
“No one anticipated this coming down the pipe?” Patterson said. “You can’t just keep coming to the city every couple of years and saying ‘Oh we just need some more money,’ and not really breaking it down.”
Thorsen said that when the council approved the original funding in 2009, it was assumed that the treated effluent would be disposed of in leach fields. But pushback from the regional water board and local environmental groups Heal the Bay and Santa Monica Baykeeper derailed that plan, making the much costlier option of deep well injection the most likely alternative.
Thorsen also said that the money currently being spent by the city would be paid back by property owners in the Civic Center area, who are going to pay for the treatment facility through an assessment district. Three test wells have been drilled in the Civic Center area, and Thorsen said it appears promising the method will work.
“Is it expensive? Absolutely it’s expensive,” Thorsen said. “But even the leach field would have been expensive.”
Thorsen also said the estimated cost to build the facility is now $30 million. Previous estimates given by the city had ranged from $30 million to $52 million.
Lyon also raised questions about the city’s decision to hire RMC Water and Environment for the engineering and design work on the deep-well testing. Lyon noted that RMC had donated to Heal the Bay, which is currently mounting a legal challenge to the MOU because it feels it does not do enough sewering. Lyon said that presented a conflict of interest.
RMC is listed on Heal the Bay’s website as an advocate sponsor for its annual Bring Back the Beach gala benefit, which took place in May 2011. Advocate sponsor is a designation given to donors who contribute $5,000 to Heal the Bay.
Thorsen acknowledged that RMC had donated to Heal the Bay, but said the firm was chosen because it is a leading expert in the areas of expertise required by the city’s project.
“Their qualifications were above the other firms that came in,” Thorsen said.
Lyon also noted that Catherine Tyrrell, a senior project manager for RMC, sits on the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission and is the former executive director of the RWQCB. Sibert acknowledged that was true.
“Well it’s all sort of tied together it seems to me,” Lyon said.
Both Lyon and Patterson said the city should take the money it is considering spending on the deep well testing to fight the RWQCB’s mandate that the city build a sewer, in light of the new science such as the recent U.S. Geological Survey study that found that human fecal indicator bacteria (FIB) may not be causing water contamination in the Malibu Lagoon and nearshore ocean.
“This information is not being used to go back to regional water and to appeal whatever decision this is, so that these people that are going to be in this assessment district for this sewer are going to pay for this thing that’s going to benefit commercial real estate development,” Lyon said.
Councilmember John Sibert said there were other reasons besides FIB levels that the RWQCB cited in issuing the septic ban. One was high nitrogen levels in the lagoon and nearshore ocean, which Sibert said could not be mitigated by septic systems.
“If it were just on the bacteria, we might have a good case,” said Sibert, who is running for re-election to the council. “But it’s not just on the bacteria.”
Mayor Pro Tem Lou La Monte said the major issue for him was not the extra $1.45 million, but the ongoing legal struggles the MOU still faces. Heal the Bay and Santa Monica Baykeeper last year filed a petition with the state challenging the authority of the State and Regional Water Boards to enter into the MOU with the City of Malibu. The State Water Board agreed to hold the petition in abeyance for two years, effectively giving the groups that long to decide whether to continue with a lawsuit.
Thorsen acknowledged the abeyance issue left the city “in limbo,” as the MOU could potentially be invalidated after millions had been spent on designing the facility.
La Monte said he would recommend against approving the extra $1.45 million until the abeyance issue was resolved.