Report by Chief Operations Supervisor Randy Gilgo

Randy started by apologizing for not having a written report prepared due to his computer being down last week.  He continued his operations report by saying the district had a new employee who was working out very well as he was being introduced to routine maintenance around the plant, performing equipment inventories and such.

NEW FILTERS (Vessel one)

The newly repaired filters at the plant are working “phenomenally” and Randy emphasized that in his own experience the plant has always produced good water but the numbers have decreased “dramatically” with the new filters. (Reduced numbers are good as they {evidently} represent values of unwanted contaminants present in the water during quality analysis.)  Randy said he couldn’t wait to see the effects when the second pair of filters were also repaired – completion estimated to be in a couple of weeks.

BARGE UPDATE

Regarding the previously reported sinking barge –

Randy said there is a proposal just under $16,000 to refurbish the barge.  Work is anticipated to be completed locally at the McClure dry dock facility.  The second floating component attached to the barge will be decommissioned with all that equipment being added to the actual barge.  Although not immediately needed (lake level is going up) the project could be completed rather quickly once approved.  Solar panels are to be installed to avoid the repeated purchase of batteries and a rebuild of the “out drives” was necessary due to complaints from lake officials and the sheriff’s office that oil was leaking causing oil sheen on the water surface which obviously reflected quite poorly on district operations.

Randy  stated once the barge and the second set of filters were repaired the district would be “sitting pretty for a long time”.

Director Russell Warren questioned whether or not the board had already approved $20,000 for the barge?  GM Kampa seemed to indicate yes and that it involved having the plans reviewed by an engineer and included electrical issues – primarily structural and electrical.

I’ve listen to KAMPA’s answer a few times and still don’t quite understand his statement in light of previous information regarding this project last November or this last meeting December 19th!

But Director Warren did confirm the prior approval was up to $20,000.

GM Kampa then changed the subject by suggesting Randy explain what happened with the electrical issue at the plant on Friday.  Although this incident was indeed interesting (perhaps we’ll get to that later) I need to address something that doesn’t seem right.  What is worse is the fact I didn’t discover it until today (December 22nd) while working on this meeting report.  Something is very wrong about this barge business, sure, I could be missing something – but I don’t think so.

You know, I believe at this point it would behoove me to just present the raw information to you viewers and allow you to draw your own conclusions rather than my speculating as to what the heck is going on here.  I will say this though (you knew I would right?), prior to Pete Kampa’s return such important information was always contained in the prepared agenda packet with any supporting material.  (Pages were also always numbered and a bottom page header identified the particular meeting date and subject matter limiting the possibility that the packet could later be changed by either adding or removing pages.  All that and much more disappeared when Kampa returned to LDP.)

Prior to Kampa there was a continuity or ordered flow of precisely identified information that was much easier to follow and understand.

Pete Kampa has consistently left such important documents and supporting material out of the packet (with special emphasis on his “manager’s report”) preferring instead to break up extremely relevant information into meeting “handouts” for those few that attend.    Why?

Personally I believe this is done to insure such information can eventually be easily lost from the regular packet of material to never to be seen again – much like our OFFICIAL MAP OF DISTRICT WATER SERVICE was intentionally “detached” from other important records!

Who is to say some “handout” was or was not presented to support other activity last month?  Or 6 months ago?  Or during the massive changes that took  place immediately after Kampa’s “BOARD ORCHESTRATED RETURN” to reconfigure our surface water treatment plant into a groundwater substitution facility for land developers outside the place of use under water license 11395 using millions of public dollars obtained from  state and federal agencies ostensibly to help existing customers survive the extended drought?  (Wonder if that is a compound sentence?  lol)

But that is just my opinion of course and I admit to not trusting Peter Kampa as far as I could physically pick him up and toss him anywhere outside our legal district boundary – but of course, even that is an unknown at this time.  But again, I digress.

Other than Director Warren’s confirmation of what the Board had previously approved there was no mention of the total project estimate appearing to be substantially OVER THE $20,000 THE BOARD APPROVED LAST MONTH and the $16,000 Randy reported during the meeting.

What the heck am I missing here?  Ohhhhhh……check it out…..

How could the directors, or ANYONE receiving the electronic agenda packet or the printed version at the meeting [both of which DID NOT CONTAIN THE ESTIMATES THAT RANDY FURNISHED AFTER THE BARGE COST DISCUSSION HAD CONCLUDED], possibly have realized the total cost of Kampa’s barge project was $27, 178.76?

How did Randy obtain that under $16,000 figure?  Did someone tell him it was under $16,000 or was there some trick to calculating the subtotal estimates?

What is more, Director Ross even later asks Kampa if the barge matter should be placed on the next agenda yet Kampa said that was unnecessary unless the project cost was greater than what the board had approved in November….. WHAT?   Didn’t KAMPA already know it was way over what was approved?

Sorry, but I think another “SNEAKY PETE” has taken place.

For those of you who did not receive the agenda/packet, here is the information to which I am referring:

<insert 3 scans & estimate package>

1.  <BELOW> GM PETER KAMPA’s explanation of the barge project at the November 21, 2016 meeting:

2)  <BELOW> BASED ON KAMPA’S “WORSE CASE SCENARIO COST” OF $20,000 THE BOARD APPROVES A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING $20,000 FOR THE BARGE PROJECT AT THE NOVEMBER 21, 2016 MEETING: (By the way, it really is suspicious how the bottom header of agenda packet material no longer identifies the meeting date and subject matter the information represents.  Just another KAMPA change to our previously more professional and exact reporting methods.)

3) <BELOW> ALTHOUGH THE ESTIMATE PACKET WAS NOT IN KAMPA’S ELUSIVE “hide & seek IN JUNK MAIL” DECEMBER 19, 2016 AGENDA PACKET, HE DID REPORT AT THE MEETING IN WRITING THAT THE PROPOSAL WAS WITHIN THE APPROVED PROJECT EXPENDITURE AMOUNT.  

 

4) BELOW IS THE PACKET OF BARGE ESTIMATES RANDY FURNISHED LATER IN THE MEETING AFTER THE DISCUSSION HAD ENDED AND THE BOARD AND PUBLIC HAD ALREADY BEEN TOLD THE BARGE PROJECT COST WAS UNDER $16,000. 

HOW DID THE CHIEF OPERATOR COME TO UNDERSTAND THE TOTAL WAS UNDER $16,000?

CHECK OUT THE ESTIMATES FOR YOURSELF:  THIS 8 PAGE ESTIMATE PACKET WAS PROVIDED AFTER THE DISCUSSION WAS OVER WITH NO ADEQUATE TIME DURING THE ON-GOING MEETING FOR BOARD MEMBERS OR THE PUBLIC TO STUDY, COMPREHEND, MUCH LESS ADD ALL THE ESTIMATE SUBTOTALS WHICH AMOUNTED TO $27,178.76!   HECK EVEN THIS GREATER COST DID NOT CONTAIN THE PREVIOUSLY ANTICIPATED STRUCTURAL AND ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING CHARGES FOR THE PROJECT!

 

 

 

Maybe there was an accidental redundancy of work quoted in the different estimates?  (Although there is an identical estimate of $6,800 on page one and page eight, they also indicate different dates and invoice numbers plus the work appears to be different.) But even if that were true and some kind of mistake – what happened to the other 30 hours @ $80/hour, or $2,400?  Yup, I think we have another “SNEAKY PETE”.

 

Here’s the meeting presentation by the Chief Plant Operator – what am I missing here?

I’m beat….this audio/video stuff takes forever to upload and process!  Hopefully it will assist you viewers in appreciating what the heck is going on here at the LAKE DON PEDRO CSD.  The next posting will have video of the on-going meeting with discussion of the MAP PROJECT which is just more outrageous KAMPA KRAPA of unnecessary and extremely expensive work to obscure the truth – likely much more than $10,000 as Kampa admits.   Naturally I had to embarrass myself with more public blah, blah, blah, but the video will clearly show when the board was furnished the estimate packet —— after the barge discussion had finished!  That’s bullshit, isn’t it?   A little over 5 minutes after Randy left the board room and returned with the estimates while the meeting continued – you can hear the beeps of the security door alarm with his leaving and returning and you can observe Randy passing out the estimates to the directors.  Why was this not included in KAMPA’s JUNK AGENDA PACKET?  I think we all know why.

 

Ni-night

My best to you and yours, Lew