Amador County – An update of the Gravity Supply Line project last week drew public criticism of the Amador Water Agency board of directors, though staff saw it as indicative of changing economic times.
During public comment, Rich Farrington said AWA cannot build its Gravity Supply Pipeline project without a USDA grant and a loan. He said they also should consider the $900,000 loan from the Amador County Water Development fund, due in August.
Farrington said hydrants will be built on the GSL, and would give 2,500 gallons a minute of flow, which could be used to fill contracted water tenders to fight fires. He also suggested that the financial plan use a bar graph.
Past director Debbie Dunn chided the board on allowing Farrington to speak about the GSL, although he was commenting on the engineering report. She also said the GSL would need a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license for the project. AWA President Don Cooper said the FERC issue should be agendized and discussed at a later date.
AWA Board President Don Cooper said the target date to tell the USDA whether they do or do not have public support is July 22, in order to secure the $5 million grant and low-interest loan.
David Evitt of Sutter Creek, who led a petition drive in a Prop 218 process which stopped the last CAWP increase, said he already knew that people did not support the GSL. He said he went to more than 1,500 homes when gathering signatures, and told people their rates would go up, then they asked where they needed to sign.
AWA General Manager Gene Mancebo said Evitt’s protest last year was against a CAWP rate increase that did not include the GSL project, including the $5 million grant and low-interest loan.
Former Director Bill Condrashoff brought up concerns for what he called “wrong numbers” in the financial plan. Mancebo said they were really “assumptions,” and staff may go through a revision with it’s Budget and Finance Committee of Cooper and Director Robert Manassero.
Mancebo said it “will change proposed rate increases with those assumptions,” but it was a matter of the rate of inflation. He said staff was unsure whether to use 1, 2 or 3 percent inflation rates, while last year ended with a negative 1/10th of a percent inflation rate. He said those were the kind of things brought up, during an update meeting that went more in depth than expected.
Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
