CSD board split on landscaping
Dec 03, 2009 | 615 views | 7 
| 29 
| 
| 
| 29 | |
The CSD board rejected plans to re-landscape the corner of Willow Lake Road and Discovery Bay Boulevard despite having approved the bidding process. Above, Discovery Bay residents Cindy Kelty and Daisy, left, and Karen Muccio with Carson and Missy cross DB Boulevard.
Photo by Richard Wisdom
Photo by Richard Wisdom
In a 2-1 vote at the regular CSD meeting on Nov. 18, the three-member board was unable to reach a unanimous agreement to proceed with the estimated $130,000 in upgrades. In October, the board had rejected the work when it was presented as two jobs, hoping the price would be lower if the two projects were combined.
At the board’s request, Town General Manager Virgil Koehne then resubmitted the projects to the landscape companies, asking them to offer new bids based on the combining of the two jobs into one. As a two-phase project, the total cost of the lowest bids (which came from two different contractors) would have been $104,935, with Phase One coming in at $39,535 and Phase Two at $65,400. The low bid on the single-contractor, combined job is $128,000, from Sansei Gardens in Fremont.
Vice President Mark Simon and Director David Piepho were in favor of the revised plan, but President Ray Tetreault voted against the upgrades. “I could have gone for Phase One,” he told Simon and Piepho, “but you guys wanted to combine the projects, and I can’t get behind this.”
The proposed project begins at the intersection of Willow Lake Road and Discovery Bay Boulevard and extends along the south side of Willow Lake Road toward Discovery Bay Elementary School.
Phase One included the addition of approximately 500 feet of new sidewalk, a park bench, a trellis for shade protection and assorted planter boxes.
Phase Two involved the remainder of the property at the corner of Willow Lake Road and Discovery Bay Boulevard and consisted primarily of a wide expanse of new lawn with designations for the Discovery Bay Garden Club (DBGC) to use as demonstration areas.
Rebecca Ferguson, a member of the DBGC, said her group would be pleased to serve in an advisory and supportive capacity for the project: “We would love to be consultants. But with water being a problem, why are we putting in grass instead of taking it out?”
Tetreault wondered the same thing and questioned the location of the project, noting that there appeared to be other sites in town with greater landscaping needs.
“The board decided on this location,” said Koehne in a recent phone interview, “because one of the issues we have at the moment is that because of existing levees, the Army Corps of Engineers and FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) are in the process of deciding if trees or shrubs can be planted on levees. So until that is decided we (the town) are left with fewer choices.”
At the CSD board meeting, Piepho requested that Koehne find out if the bid bonds have an expiration date that might affect the board’s future decisions regarding the project. Bid bonds are bidders’ deposits intended to keep non-serious bidders out of the process.
Koehne said that he reviewed the bids following the meeting and found no expiration dates. He also contacted the town’s legal counsel this week to ascertain if there is some legal limit on how long the bids are valid. Koehne added that he has not heard back yet from town counsel.
However, as the town has more than $1 million in landscaping funds sitting in the bank, Simon and Piepho agreed that while the proposed project wasn’t perfect, it was worth the $128,000 to get something done.
“I would like to make a motion to approve the project,” said Piepho during the meeting. “Let’s see what we can do with this.”
Simon seconded the motion. “Let’s just do this and get it done,” he said. “It can be tweaked and we can make changes if we want.”
But Tetreault disagreed. “No, I’m not going to lie down for it,” he said.
Koehne admitted to being surprised by the board’s decision. “I am frustrated,” said Koehne. “When we brought it out to the board originally to spend some dollars, I would have thought they (the board) would have said something then if they didn’t want it (the project) … It really blindsided me.”
Koehne said that the next step will be to present the bid expiration information to the board at the next regular meeting on Dec. 16, and then await a decision.
It’s possible that by then the board will once again have its full compliment of five directors – the appointment or special election of two new directors is currently before the county Board of Supervisors – which would allow the CSD to make non-unanimous decisions.
“We’ll see what they (CSD board) say and what they want to do about the project,” said Koehne. “If they want to do the job, we’ll go ahead. If not, then we’ll send the bonds back. We’ll just wait for them to give staff some direction.”
we're talking about local jobs, local taxes..etc.
did anybody local bid on this?
Are we really going to blog our incredibly important opinion on every subject?
Isn't this just what the last editorial was about?
Two sides fighting it out and nothing getting done?
In the large scheme of things Astroturf means little when we have another round of foreclosures coming and more and more residents of our community are upside down on their loans.
The smaller the sphere of influence the more crazy people get. Do you hold the state Congress or the Federal Congress to this level? No, you people don't. You don’t even hold the county to this level of micro management and they have more influence over your day-to-day life than the CSD does.
Let’s slow down the rhetoric and increase the action.
PS. no blogger has blogged they “WANTED” Astroturf, only Mr. Tetreault wants it, let us not forget. So much for change.
Though I do not favor the plan that was put forth by the GM, I won’t take issue with Piepho or Simon for their votes as I each had valid and reasonable basis for their positions.
The deliberations provided insight into the way these proposals are managed. As Director Piepho pointed out, the Board should have known the expiration status of the bid bonds during their deliberation. It is a shame that information wasn't provided to the Directors before the meeting, but it certainly should have been available to them during the meeting. The Board was told that the bid bonds certainly had an expiration date, but there was uncertainty over what that date may be. Now it turns out that there is in fact no expiration date at all! Director Piepho was, in my opinion, rightfully perturbed.
There seems to be a problem with the way the Board and GM work together. I don’t think one can point a finger solely at the GM or the Board as the cause, but this is an underlying problem that manifests itself in these sorts of circumstances.
Director Simon was right to ask to have the complete landscaping project list be included as a topic on the next meeting agenda. Many citizens are unaware of which areas are under the control of the DB-CSD, and what limitations are placed on the landscaping in those areas. This should help educate us all.
In my opinion, though I did not agree with each position they took, the town was well served by all three of our Directors on this issue: I support Ray's vote, David's strong desire to be provided with better information from the GM, Mark's suggestion that the entire landscaping project list be put on the next agenda and each of their desire to be actively involved in improving our landscaping.
I hope they will regroup and organize the landscape project list and overall plan to incorporate the realities of our dwindling water supply.
Unfortunately earlier this year when the issue came up, the Board took the save a nickel today so we can waste a dollar tomorrow approach and they put off the rollout of meters.
If you're going to talk the talk, then walk the walk.
1, I believe the town needs a complete master plan for landscaping/landscaping improvement. Approaching this set of projects on a one-off basis does not seem efficient or conducive to a result that will be cohesive, cost efficient or appealing. If such a plan already exists then it should be widely publicized and made available on a website for viewing/comment by the community. The landscaping in this town has long suffered and is in desperate need of repair/upgrading, but all of a sudden rushing to spend money for the sake of spending money (the facade of action) does not seem prudent. I'm not suggesting a significant delay....I'm suggesting now that finally the resolve exists......do it right with forethought and proper planning.
2, In my opinion turfgrass should be virtually eliminated from the town's landscaping. At a prior CSD meeting that I believe included a discussion of the project(s) that were voted down I referenced a particular community that has recently undergone a significant landscaping build-out and has done so in an aesthetically pleasing/water efficient manner with almost no turfgrass. I followed-up those comments with the email shown below.
From: Jeff Barber
Subject: suggestion to limit the use of turfgrass in DB
To: "Ray Tetreault" , "Virgil Koehne" ,
Date: Wednesday, September 23, 2009, 1:24 PM
A short note to follow up on my comments regarding grass and landscaping. It is a fact that turfgrass is a high-volume irrigation landscape material. It is also a fact that turfgrass can look terrible when sections are damaged or not properly cared for. Many communities in climates similar to DB's have moved away from turfgrass and have gone so far as to restrict its use in new residential applications. In my opinion it is the right thing to do for many reasons. In fact I think the town should consider a self imposed moratorium on any new turfgrass (for town owned/controlled property) planting and then move to modify the town's master landscaping plan to significantly reduce (or even eliminate) existing and or new applications of turfgrass. I might suggest you look into the EPA's WaterSence program that was introduced in 2006 aimed at improving the water efficiency of landscaping. A five year study in NV of homes that converted lawn to Xeriscape (a broad term for water efficient landscape that includes flowers, plants & trees) found that converted areas used 75% less water on average. In this day and age why waste water when other alternatives exist and are quite advantageous?
My point in bringing this up is that I think turfgrass in this climate requires too much maintenance and irrigation to keep it looking good. It is my observation that even with all of the irrigation most of the turfgrass in DB is not attractive. Using large areas of turfgrass in our climate, as a landscaping feature, is old and outmoded. Communities with our type of climate that want to project a modern and upscale image have already moved on to the Watersence and Xeriscape type of landscape design. I believe this is the proper juncture for DB to do the same. Spending more money for the same old landscaping that requires high-volume irrigation and significant maintenance just does not make sense. The fact that you may have to revise some plans is a small price to pay for being forward thinking and environmentally conscious not to mention creating a more aesthetically pleasing environment
Thanks for considering this matter.
But will Richardson, Flint and Barber start going after Tetreault on this one? Of course not. That would mean that they are actually paying attention to the facts of the situation. No, they'll just continue to blame David Piepho for our town's landscaping problems. Even Mrs. Richardson wanted the landscaping project to move forward!