Prepared by Jay O'Brien from original communication files

Note: Many of these messages refer to copies of previous correspondence that was included "below".
In this web presentation all of the referenced material precedes the messages with such references.

Roger,

I understand the County has a plan prepared by Carollo Engineering which will locate a FIVE FOOT DIAMETER sewer pipe on or adjacent to Elkhorn Boulevard between East Levee Road and North Highlands.  I understand it will be TWENTY TO TWENTY FIVE FEET DEEP as it crosses Rio Linda! Can you provide any information about this plan?

If what I have heard is correct, how does this track with your assurance to our community that Elkhorn would be torn up only once to make it all-weather four lanes? How can you justify personally pulling up the all-weather road project a year or more with a sewer project in the wings? How can our water district explain to its ratepayers the expenditure of over half a million dollars to upgrade its Elkhorn distribution so that the district wouldn't require Elkhorn to be torn up to satisfy growth in the next twenty years when the County is going to do it anyway? How can the County explain to the High School why its operations must be interrupted again to accommodate projects "planned" by the County?

Is there a reason why the sewer pipe must follow Elkhorn? Have all of the alternate routes been examined and ruled out? Why not U Street, Q Street, or one of the drainage tributaries? Why not Elverta Road, making it four lanes at the same time? Why Elkhorn?

I'm sure that I have only heard one side of the story. I await your response.

Jay O'Brien

cc: Involved community leaders (Don, please don't print this until we get Roger's response)

Jay:

I am sorry that I have not responded sooner, but I have been on vacation, and Roger is on vacation for a few days now.

When we were first shown the plans for this project, we also hit the roof regarding the possibility of tearing up Elkhorn when we are just in the process of finishing the new road alignment.

We asked that the engineers look again at how the sewer line could be aligned to avoid Elkhorn.  There were several other proposed routes, but they would have involved different topography that would not provide for the flow needed and would have required deeper trenches, at a much higher cost. We asked that the new road surface on Elkhorn be avoided as much as possible, and a plan was shown to us that would follow Elkhorn, but would only involve the new roadway in two or three small areas.

To my knowledge, the Board has not yet approved the plans and specs for this project, so the project has not gone to bid yet; also, there is not yet an environmental document for review, to my knowledge.  I can find out more from Wendell Kido at the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. Please feel free to contact him, too, if you would like.

Bottom line:  we definitely share your concerns about the disruption caused by yet another project; we have made our objections known.  I will find out more about the project status.  Please do not print our reply until we have all of the facts to present to the public.  Thanks.

Karen Ziebron
Chief of Staff
Supervisor Dickinson's Office

Karen,

Thank you for your July 10 response to my June 29 email. I am glad to learn that you share my concerns.

However, I have learned that the design report for the "Upper Northwest Interceptor Project", which will run the 25' deep ditch through or adjacent to Elkhorn was in progress during the public hearings and EIR process for the Elkhorn Widening project that Supervisor Dickinson pulled up more than a year "to benefit the community". I must wonder why the Water Quality and SRCSD people did not make their intentions known at that time. Can you answer to this apparent lack of communication between Water Quality and Transportation? Is an EIR valid when information internally available to the County was not considered by the County?

As you suggested, I called Wendell Kido. I learned that he works for Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District, and is District Manager. He was very helpful, and his people will be providing additional details on the design report itself. Thank you for that lead.

We're all waiting on you to share "all of the facts to present to the public", including details on the locations of the "two or three small areas" where the new roadway will be involved. The ball is in your court.

Thanks.

Jay O'Brien

i have also contacted wendell kido--i cannot explain why the departments did not contact each other internally about the timing of both projects.  the facts i want to share concern where we are in the process for the sewer project, etc, as i mentioned in my earlier e-mail .  i do not know the timelines yet.

had roger known about the sewer project when he sped up the elkhorn widening project to keep access to the community open in the event of flooding, he certainly would have wanted a more detailed description of how these projects could have been managed together.

stay tuned

Karen Ziebron
Chief of Staff
Supervisor Dickinson's Office

Karen,

I'm happy that you are also concerned about the apparent lack of coordination between the two Public Works Departments. It seems to me that as a SRCSD Board member, that SRCSD staff should have kept Roger completely informed. Isn't there a SRCSD Master Plan that should have spelled out the need for a 25' deep trench for a five-foot diameter pipe along 8 miles of Elkhorn Blvd. from the East Main Drain to I80?

Karen, do you know the proposed timeline for the excavation of the 25' deep ditch?

staying tuned...

Jay O'Brien

I don't think that the Master Plan goes into that kind of detail as to locations and depths of trench cuts.  This would be looked at on a project-by-project basis, and is part of the plans and specs.

The Master Plan deals in general with projected needs, etc. The Board would look at the whole system, and the projects needed to improve and complete the system.

As I said in my previous e-mail, I have contacted Wendell Kido and Bob Shanks by e-mail to learn more about the status of this project, including the timeline.  I am sorry if I did not make it clear that the timeline had not yet been established, to the best of my memory.

Karen Ziebron
Chief of Staff
Supervisor Dickinson's Office

Dear Mr. O'Brien,

Since I was not here on Friday, I did not receive your voice mail until this morning.

Carollo Engineers had forwarded the "errata" (list of corrections) to me last week.  After my review, I sent them my comments for incorporation. They had forwarded the revised "errata" on Friday and I will review it this morning.  Once the "errata" is correct, Carollo will take the steps to have the revised CD burned.

I will contact Carollo this morning after their office is open to find out when we can expect the revised CD.

Thanks for you patience in this matter.

Vonda L. Derryberry
(916) 875-6792
derryberryv@pwa.co.sacramento.ca.us

Vonda,

Thank you. I'm looking forward to the CD and the details on alignment along Elkhorn Between the west end of the project and the east side of the McClellan runway.

Jay O'Brien

Dear Mr. O'Brien,

I wanted to let you know that we have not forgotten your request.  The engineer thought the CD was ready this week, but found another glitch of some sort that needed to be fixed.  Hopefully, the engineer will return my call today for a status update on the anticipated delivery date of the CD.

Again, thanks for your patience in this matter.

Vonda L. Derryberry
(916) 875-6792
derryberryv@pwa.co.sacramento.ca.us

Jay:

I know that you and others have been curious about the finish date for the Elkhorn project between Dry Creek and 6th.

I have located the current project manager (one retired, the other was recruited for a position out of the County).

I understand from the current project manager that the overlay for the roadway should begin next Monday or Tuesday, and be completed shortly thereafter.  Then the median landscaping will take place.  The project should be finished by the end of summer.

If you have any other questions, you know where to find me.

I have also been in touch with the Water Quality folks about the sewer project and understand that Dave Ocenasak (speling?) has been in touch with you.

Karen Ziebron
Chief of Staff
Supervisor Dickinson's Office

Karen,

Thank you for that information. Yes, we have been curious.  Who is the new Project Manager? Did he replace Kamran Mahmoudi? If so, the change is sudden, as I talked to Kamran on July 10th.

And yes, Dave Ocenosak (his picture is on the cover and page 8 of the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District 1999 Annual Report) has been very helpful in providing details and history on the 25' deep 10' wide ditch for the interceptor that will run the full length of Elkhorn from East Levee to I80. It's sure too bad that the current project couldn't have been coordinated with the upcoming sewer interceptor.

I missed Roger this morning at the Sacramento North Area Groundwater Management Authority (SNAGMA) Board meeting, and no County staff was present. Is Roger still on vacation?

Jay

Roger is in Washington with Keith and others re East Bay MUD.

Kamran's leaving was a surprise to me, also. The woman who is project manager now did not give me her name.

Karen Ziebron
Chief of Staff
Supervisor Dickinson's Office

Hi Vonda,

Thank you for your prompt attention to getting the CD to me. I have passed the information along to others who are interested, and we all appreciate your assistance.

Jay O'Brien

Vonda,

The more I review the CD, the more I am impressed by the quality of work you folks have done. Unfortunately, the parameters have now changed along Elkhorn Boulevard, causing me to feel that if the comparisons were done again, but with today's conditions, the route selection might be different.

In retrospect, what is indeed unfortunate is the fact that SRCSD's comments on the Elkhorn Widening Project seem to have been completely ignored.

Again... Thanks!

Jay O'Brien

Per our phone conversation, the attached trench cut ordinance contains language regarding the trench cut moratorium.

Dave Franke, Senior Civil Engineer
Department of Transportation
Transportation Design Section
906 G Street, Suite 510
Sacramento, CA  95814
Mail Code 34-100
 <<Chapter 12.09.ver2.doc>>

Dave,

Thank you very much. I have since learned that it was adopted as ordinance #1145 on July 20, 1999. It appears that a 10' wide trench for the reach from Rio Linda Blvd to Dry Creek Road, one mile, at a fee of $5.91/sq ft, will cost over $300,000 in trench cut fees alone. As Elkhorn from Dry Creek to 24th Street is likely to also be within the five year moratorium, that also may require SRCSD to pay such fees.

I really appreciate you bringing this to my attention.

Regards,

Jay O'Brien

Dave,

Can you find out for me when the Elkhorn project between Dry Creek Road and 24th Street was completed? That is, when was the notice of completion or acceptance filed?

Also, in the same vein, can you estimate when a similar notice is likely to be filed on the project between Rio Linda Blvd and Dry Creek Road?

I want to know when the street trench moratorium periods start.

Thank you!

Jay O'Brien

Jay,
I haven't located the letter of acceptance for the Elkhorn Blvd., Dry Creek to 24th Street project but I believe it was December 1998.

My thought on the Elkhorn Blvd., Rio Linda Boulevard to Dry Creek Road project is the letter of acceptance will probably go out in October or November 2000.

Dave Franke, Senior Civil Engineer
Department of Transportation
Transportation Design Section
906 G Street, Suite 510
Sacramento, CA  95814
Mail Code 34-100

Dave,

Thank you very much. I'll use the December 1998 date unless you advise otherwise.

Regards,

Jay

Dave,

During our conversation Friday you mentioned your suspicion that there may be a Department of Health Services requirement for separation between parallel water mains and Sewer Interceptors. When you mentioned that I intended to ask you for a lead on where I could go to find the regulation or standard, but it slipped my mind.

Can you suggest where I might go to find such information?

Thanks!

Jay O'Brien
991-2010

Jay - I will fax you a copy of what I have.  The standard comes from the State Department of Health Services.
Dave

Roger,

As suggested by your Chief of Staff Karen Ziebron, I contacted Wendell Kido of the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD). I also followed other leads, and I have talked to many other concerned County folks, including Dave Ocenosak, Dean Wiley, Vonda Derryberry, Kamaran Mahmoudi, Dave Franke, and Theron Roschen. I've also talked to several contractors who perform services for the County. I enjoyed superb cooperation from everyone I contacted; copies of resolutions, drawings, an ordinance, and even a data CD were forthcoming. I appreciate the concerned assistance I received from County staff. I'm sorry you have not been able to also personally respond to my request, as I am sure you could have provided additional useful information. Karen's responses, in your absence, were quite helpful, however.

I have much more detail to back up what I am about to summarize for you, and I can provide it if you wish. However, to cut to the chase, here's the story.

SRCSD contracted for a Northwest Interceptor Design in 1995, which selected Antelope Road as the route for the proposed Sewer line from Citrus Heights to Natomas. SRCSD later changed the route to Elkhorn Boulevard and warned everyone of that fact with its comments included in the Final Elkhorn Widening EIR (pages 5.2-4 and 8.0-1) that your Board approved (Resolution 98-0555) on May 12, 1998. The Department of Environmental Review and Assessment (DERA) did not mention the stated SRCSD concern in the statement of potentially significant impacts you approved; however DERA did mention the potentially significant impacts on the Western Pond Turtle (page 6), and on the Red-Tailed Hawk (page 7), among many other concerns.

Based on your assurance to the community that the new Elkhorn Boulevard would be all-weather and not be disturbed for many years, the Rio Linda/Elverta Community Water District spent a half-million dollars to upgrade and relocate its water mains, so the District's growth would not be the reason for cutting into this important new roadway in our community. Now, we learn that the new water mains have been inadvertently located into the area now potentially to be needed by the SRCSD sewer interceptor, perhaps violating Department of Health Services regulations for separation between water mains and parallel sewer lines if SRCSD sticks with its selected Elkhorn Boulevard route.

Further, your Board passed ordinance 1145, the Street Trench ordinance, on July 20, 1999. If the planned interceptor runs from Rio Linda Boulevard to 24th Street in the location shown on the present plans, and if the trench required is 10' wide, as suggested by County personnel, then this 2.65 miles would represent 140,000 square feet, or $827,000 in trench cut fees alone. Sacramento County Engineering Department Director Cheryl Creson assured me at the April 22, 1999 Board meeting of the Sacramento Metropolitan Water Authority that such fees would be imposed on the County itself when new asphalt is cut. However, the SRCSD design report (page 109 of 1169) suggests that "... Transportation Division is at liberty to waive...", showing that Creson's statement was perhaps without foundation. Waiving these fees would make it very difficult to impose similar fees on non-County utilities in the future, and strikes at the heart of the reason for enacting the Street Trench Ordinance in the first place.

Notwithstanding the problems implied by the Department of Health Services and by the Street Trench ordinance, you personally made a commitment to our community that Elkhorn would be a permanent roadway when completed. Elkhorn isn't even finished, yet the SRCSD schedule says it will be torn up again next year!

The concerns SRCSD articulated in their EIR comments were not accommodated, perhaps because of the imposed abbreviated engineering schedule on the Elkhorn work required to pull the job up one year. SRCSD staff did NOT drop the ball, but it certainly seems to me that the SRCSD Board of Directors, who approved the SRCSD plan, did not communicate with the County Board of Supervisors, who approved the Elkhorn widening. Someone didn't recognize what SRCSD was saying. I know that when I first read their comments, "Interceptor" didn't mean 25' deep, 10' wide ditch 8 miles long to me, but certainly someone should have been able to understand.

The present SRCSD plans DO NOT consider ANY of the improvements made on Elkhorn Boulevard between Rio Linda Boulevard and 24th Street. The signal at 16th Street is not on their drawings; all of the recent four-lane work, and the new bridge and bypass channel are all missing from the SRCSD plans. This is because they did their engineering and design work BEFORE the Elkhorn widening, and, as I said before, they appropriately commented such in the Elkhorn widening EIR. The SRCSD route selection process did not have the benefit of knowledge of ANY of the recent improvements when making the economic, environmental, flexibility, constructability, easement acquisition and accessibility comparisons between the alternatives.

I suggest that there have been enough changes since the SRCSD evaluation which selected Elkhorn as a route that SRCSD should now re-evaluate its selection. I suggest that Alternative 1 (see SRCSD design report page 46 of 1169), which parallels the existing Dry Creek Interceptor from Elkhorn to U Street is now the optimum route. It will not be any more difficult to maintain than the already existing Interceptor in that same streambed, and, with the potential to bore under Elkhorn, it may not disrupt Elkhorn Boulevard at all. SRCSD has stated that the initial phase of the new interceptor must connect Citrus Heights to the existing interceptor on the Dry Creek Streambed at Elkhorn. Alternative 1 meets that requirement without tearing up Elkhorn again along the High School and east to Watt Avenue and beyond. The western reach from the Dry Creek Streambed (at Cherry Lane) west on Elkhorn to the NEMDC will be constructed more than a year later (see page 12 of 1169), but will not impact the High School and will cut very little "new" asphalt, if any.

Roger, it is unfortunate that the coordination between County Agencies clearly called for in SRCSD's EIR comments didn't happen. The Elkhorn widening and all-weather project should have waited for the SRCSD Interceptor and it all should have been done at the same time. Instead, you put all the pressure you could on it to get it done, and get it done now, damn the torpedoes. That worked. It is almost finished, and it is a great improvement for our community.

I would prefer to not have to explain that our beautiful new road is being hacked up to accommodate Citrus Heights' sewage as a result of inadequate coordination between Sacramento County agencies. Let's put the interceptor in "Alternative 1", the Dry Creek streambed, and leave Elkhorn alone for now. Besides, it will better serve the Elverta Specific Plan area. My discussions with County staff indicate that they don't disagree. How about it, Roger? You can make it happen.

Jay O'Brien

Roger,

I sent you a detailed email letter on August 6th that concluded with a suggestion which would avoid cutting our beautiful new Elkhorn Boulevard again, almost before the asphalt cures. I haven't received any answer from you. Did you receive my message? I have included it below, in case it didn't get to you the first time.

In response to my first email to you on this subject, which I sent to you on June 29th, Karen Ziebron responded "Please do not print our reply until we have all of the facts to present to the public." I have kept Don Flesch of the Rio Linda News up to date, but he has honored my request, based on Karen's statement, to wait for your statement of "all of the facts" before printing anything from me. I have been waiting now for a month for "all of the facts" from you. During that time, I have gathered the facts on my own from our County staff. I will now be releasing the information I have gathered to Don, and it would be much more complete if it could include a statement from you, hopefully supporting my conclusion.

Since my letter to you on August 6 (below), I have learned two more pertinent facts, thanks to our County staff. First, I learned that the Elkhorn widening between Dry Creek Road and 24th street was completed in December 1998. That means the 5 year moratorium your Board imposed with the Street Trench Ordinance will run through December 2003 in that section; if the section between Rio Linda Boulevard and Dry Creek Road completes in December 2000, then the moratorium on that section will run until December 2005.

The other item I received was a copy of the State Department of Health Services (DHS) regulations on the separation of water mains and sanitary sewers. As part of the Elkhorn widening project, the Rio Linda/Elverta Community Water District replaced its mains with new 12" pipes, sized to handle future growth. The new mains were placed exactly where the present SRCSD preliminary plans show the new interceptor. This clearly would violate the DHS regulations, unless special approval is granted by DHS. If approval is granted by DHS, special (read VERY expensive "gold plated") requirements will be imposed on the sewer construction, and the construction of the sewer must not disturb the (now) existing line. Had any inkling of the planned interceptor been made available (remember, it WAS in the EIR) to the utilities by the County during the engineering and construction phase of the Elkhorn widening project, it is unlikely that the mains would have been placed where they now reside.

It is indeed unfortunate that proper coordination and engineering did not take place for the Elkhorn widening and improvement project, perhaps due to the imposed schedule which was sped up by fiat. However, Elkhorn Boulevard is now (nearly) completed, and that fact cannot now be ignored when designing and constructing the interceptor to convey the sewage from Citrus Heights through Rio Linda to the treatment plant.

Your support and direction to County staff to select the Dry Creek Channel route, alternate number 1, is expected. Yes, it will be more costly than the originally planned route, but with the completed improvements now in place, and with the extra costs implied by those improvements, the Dry Creek Channel  may well prove to be the least expensive alternative at this juncture. It  certainly will be less disruptive to our community and will not meet with the outrage the Elkhorn alternative is sure to beget.

Your prompt response is requested.

Jay O'Brien

Roger,

I was pleased today to receive a call from SRCSD Engineer Dave Ocenosak. He suggested that I meet him on Elkhorn Boulevard to review his newest alternative plan. He had just visited the Rio Linda/Elverta Water District, where Pat Goyet showed him the drawings of exactly where the new water mains had been placed, thus making it impossible for the planned interceptor to be placed where it has been planned.

I met Dave, and Vonda Derryberry, on the new bridge over the flood channel. We walked to the bike trail and he pointed out his new proposed route, somewhat north of Elkhorn Boulevard. The interceptor would go right through the middle of the High School's north parking lot, near the stadium. The construction would be timed to occur during school vacation, and the net result is that the High School would get a completely repaved parking lot. The strawberry vendor at Cherry Lane would probably lose business again, but it is possible he could get a paved driveway in exchange for the inconvenience. There are some Oak trees in the route which would be missed or would be left undisturbed by tunneling under them.  Elkhorn Boulevard would not be cut by this new plan.

As I have stated before, my concerns about the Interceptor project as detailed in the SRCSD CD I was provided (Upper Northwest Interceptor Design Report, 1169 pages) are the tearing up of Elkhorn Boulevard and the interruption of the High School. When I talked to Dave on August 4th, I suggested that the Second Street route, evaluated as part of the project, should be used vice Elkhorn. He explained that even though it was evaluated, the Second Street route could not be used. Instead, he proposed the Dry Creek Channel route, which was a satisfactory alternative in my opinion, and that is why I suggested it to you. The new alternative he is now proposing on the north side of Elkhorn could certainly also mitigate my concerns, given the necessary attention to detail and timing that he proposes.

What Dave is proposing sounds fine to me, as long as proper contact, coordination and compensation are forthcoming with and to the property owners and affected entities. Dave and Vonda are very concerned about our community and they want to perform their duties appropriately for the County. In my opinion Dave and Vonda will provide capable, knowledgeable and concerned guidance to this project. With them in control of the newly proposed redesign, I don't believe we can go wrong.

I understand that you continued item 10 from your yesterday's Board agenda. Item 10 (SRCSD) was to provide engineering services for sections 7 and 8 of the Interceptor which are east of our area. Those sections would have been impacted by a reroute north up the Dry Creek Channel as I was proposing. I appreciate you taking that action, supporting the concerns I have expressed to you about the impact the originally proposed Elkhorn route would have on the Rio Linda community.  That shows that you do listen; even if you don't provide feedback to those who communicate with you. It now appears that if Dave's vision is to be followed, you ought to go ahead with sections 7 and 8 as proposed yesterday.

I look forward to working with Dave and Vonda as they prepare their new route for the interceptor. I'm proud to have them working for us.

Jay O'Brien

Thank you Jay.  I appreciate your comfort with our work.  And yes, I will continue to work hard to make this as minimal of an impact as I can.

Thanks again,
Dave

Jay,

Thanks for the kudos.  It's nice to know that you're an individual who brings attention to the positive as well as the negative.

Vonda

Jay:

I simply have not had time this week to respond to your emails and Karen is not in the office this week.  I will be happy to provide a much longer response at a later time, but suffice it to say that I have been aware of this issue for quite some time.  Unfortunately, there was no way to get the interceptor work done at the same time the Elkhorn Blvd. project now being completed was under construction.  It also appeared from the meetings I had with staff that an Elkhorn alignment for the interceptor was the only feasible course under all the circumstances.  I will also attempt to ensure that as little disruption as possible occurs when the interceptor work takes place.

ROGER DICKINSON
Supervisor, First District
Sacramento County

Roger,

Thank you for your belated response, copied below. You say "... suffice it to say that I have been aware of this issue for quite some time." As you know, I, also, have been involved in this issue since June 29th, when I first was asked about the situation and queried you about it by email. Exactly when were you first "aware of this issue"?

Your Chief of Staff, Karen Ziebron, responded to my email query 11 days later, "When we were first shown the plans for this project, we also hit the roof regarding the possibility of tearing up Elkhorn when we are just in the process of finishing the new road alignment."  Rather than share your now asserted prior knowledge of the conflict, and rather than accept my query as a requirement for further investigation by your staff, she referred me to Wendell Kido, the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD) District Manager. To me, her response indicated you were not aware of the interceptor plans until quite recently; certainly not during the design phase of the Elkhorn project.

Given Ms. Ziebron's direction to call Mr. Kido, and with the lack of otherwise substantive response from you, I spent many hours doing extensive investigation that I feel should have been done for me (and for you) by your staff. I researched the issues, I reviewed the engineering drawings, I looked at every page of the 1169 page CD I was provided by Mr. Kido's organization. I consulted with several disciplines of our County staff, and I reported my findings and conclusions to you. And that to gain a response from you, my County Supervisor, "I simply have not had time this week to respond to your emails." Roger, in my opinion, it is your obligation to always "simply have time" to respond to a constituent, especially one who has been obliged, by you, to spend time doing staff work that should have been done in your office. As an elected Rio Linda/Elverta Community Water District Director, I ALWAYS find time to promptly and honestly respond to my constituents, and I don't have a "staff".

During my investigation, I learned that SRCSD was not aware of the new placement of the Water District pipes, and I arranged for them to meet with Water District personnel. SRCSD then confirmed, as I suspected, that the new location of the water mains now precludes them from following their original plans as State Department of Health Services (DHS) regulations would be violated. Proper coordination during the engineering phase of the Elkhorn widening project would have prevented today's conflicts, and perhaps might have caused reconsideration of the expedited schedule you imposed on them, so as to accommodate the needed coordination.

You say "Unfortunately, there was no way to get the interceptor work done at the same time the Elkhorn Blvd. project now being completed was under construction." That implies that you knew about the interceptor work at the outset of the Elkhorn project. If so, why was the information about the interceptor not provided by the County to the Water District and other utilities who moved their facilities to accommodate the Elkhorn improvement?  As a result of this lack of information, your expedited Elkhorn widening project has now made all of SRCSD's preliminary design work on the south side of Elkhorn Boulevard useless. That design money was spent by SRCSD for nothing, as a result of the ineffective coordination by County agencies during the arbitrarily sped-up Elkhorn Boulevard widening. It was an egregious waste of taxpayers money.

You say to me that you "simply have not had time this week to respond to your emails". What about the week before that? Or the four weeks before that?

Roger, I look forward to receiving your "much longer response" that you have now committed to provide "at a later time". There are still many unanswered questions. When will the "later time" come? Will it include "all of the facts to present to the public" as suggested by Ms. Ziebron in her email to me on July 10th?

Jay O'Brien

Jay

I talked to Wendell's staff about this issue over a year ago.  So did Roger. I thought you might like to talk to Wendell yourself, as he can explain things better.

I resent the implication that I did not do my job.

Karen Ziebron
Chief of Staff
Supervisor Dickinson's Office

Karen,

What I understand from your email is that you and Supervisor Dickinson discussed the conflict with SRCSD "over a year ago". You did not bring the other affected parties together at that time or attempt to mitigate the problem. I don't know what changes might have transpired had you shared your knowledge at that time and insisted on proper coordination, and there is no way to determine that now. I suspect, however, that it would have been easier on all concerned, and less costly, had you shared your knowledge "over a year ago" rather than wait for me to raise the issue.

You and Supervisor Dickinson actually "knew" about this conflict in 1997, as Kido's staff made it clear in their 1997 comments to the EIR, certified by the Board on April 28, 1998. Transportation was directed, allegedly by the Supervisors, to rush the project, which went out to bid immediately after approval of the statement of overriding concerns. The real error was pushing the project out to bid without any of the normal utility coordination, which would have included SRCSD.

As just another example, the water district, after getting its plans approved by Transportation, when it went to place its mains, found newly placed gas lines! Kido asked for "Careful Coordination", yet there was nearly none.

Karen, granted it isn't your personal job to effect such coordination and to be sensitive to the needs of our community and the needs of the affected County Agencies. But it is the job of the Board of Supervisors, and that job was not done. You were representing Supervisor Dickinson, by answering his mail, as you are doing now.

Someone didn't do their job, and the buck stops with Supervisor Dickinson. I am sorry if that brush is broad enough to also paint you.

Jay O'Brien

Roger,

I note that in the invitation to your community meeting scheduled for October 17 (6:30-8:30 PM) at the Community Center in Rio Linda that you have identified County Staff who will be present from several departments, including Water Quality.

One of the issues that is of concern to us here in Rio Linda is the Upper Northwest Interceptor Sewer (UNWI), Section 5, which was published as a Request For Proposal (RFP) for Engineering Design Services on September 14, 2000. As you know, I have been involved with this project which initially was designed to tear up Elkhorn Boulevard (again) to install a ditch 25 feet deep and more than 6 feet wide between East Levee Road and Auburn Boulevard. I met with Dave Ocenosak, Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District's (SRCSD) Project Engineer for the UNWI, and it is now my understanding that the alignment between Cherry Lane and 24th Street will be moved to avoid the newly repaved Elkhorn Boulevard, but will require careful coordination with the High School during the time the High School's stadium parking lot will be torn up and repaved by this project.

I talked to Dave again today (875-7127), and I asked him if he would be available to attend your meeting to provide details on the project as planned. Dave said that he would be present if asked.

I would really appreciate it if you would ask Dave to accompany you to the meeting with us on October 17th, representing Water Quality and SRCSD. Dave is really on top of the Elkhorn Ditch project, and hopefully he will be able to fill us in about the project. I believe he has our best interests in mind, and it would be reassuring to see synergy between you and Dave.

Thanks for your consideration of this request.

Jay

You may remember that on October 4th I asked Supervisor Dickinson to include Dave Ocenosak in his entourage of County personnel accompanying him to his Community meeting in the Community Center on October 17th (6:30-8:30 PM). Dave is the Project Engineer responsible for the Sewer Interceptor that will follow Elkhorn Boulevard from East Levee Road to Auburn Boulevard.

I talked with Dave today, and he gave me the good news that he and Senior Engineer Neal Allen will attend the meeting here in Rio Linda. Dave and  Neal will be prepared to brief us on the "big ditch".

Don't miss the meeting!

Jay

Jay:

In response to your request, I have asked that staff be available at the meeting to discuss the interceptor project.  Dave Ocenosak and Neil Allen should be in attendance.

You have previously expressed your concern that the Elkhorn improvement project was not constructed at the same time as the interceptor.  Although it would have been preferable to build both at the same time, at the time that the Board decided to accelerate the Elkhorn project, it was clear that an extended delay would be required to construct the interceptor at the same time as the roadway.  I was not willing, nor were those who lived in Rio Linda and Elverta to whom I spoke, to wait and suffer additional winters with Elkhorn Blvd. impassable.  In fact, it's my understanding that construction won't start on the interceptor until 2003 in all probability which would have meant going through at least two additional winters without Elkhorn being improved.  I believe we made the right call.

ROGER DICKINSON
Supervisor, First District
Sacramento County

Roger,

Thank you. I'm looking forward to hearing from Ocenosak and Allen.

My concern about the two projects was that the various involved County agencies were not communicating, and that different stories were espoused depending on whom was consulted.  The recipient of the fallout from the lack of coordination would have been the community. Fortunately we have professionals like Dave Ocenosak on board who are now mitigating the problem.

Jay

Jay O'Brien: "Roger, we all thank you for the work that you did to bring Elkhorn up to an all weather condition, which it is now, it’s much better. But we’ve learned recently that there was a problem in planning and coordination because the sewage interceptor was planned to go essentially through the same right of way. And during the coordination, which was cut way down in length, the utilities were not aware of where this sewer was going to be, and now the water pipes and the gas mains are placed where the sewer was planned to be placed. I’ve worked with Dave Ocenosak, who I’m pleased to see is here tonight and I would really like to have you fill the community in on how we’re not going to tear up Elkhorn again."

Supervisor Dickinson:  "Did everyone hear the comment and the question? OK. I think in order to answer the question we need to take a small step back in time. Back about to 1997. And what we were looking at was waiting an extra year, possibly two, to do the project on Elkhorn Boulevard, to raise it.

"I felt, at that time, and other community members that I spoke with at the time, felt that was a long time to wait; that we needed that sooner; that there are too few secure routes in and out of Rio Linda especially when flooding occurs, and that it was more than just an inconvenience that Elkhorn went under on an annual basis, but it posed a risk to health and safety. I think that any of you recall 1995 in particular, or 1997; 1995 for example, there was no way to get to Rio Linda for a period of time other than using Elverta Road from Watt Avenue. You could not get here from Elverta or Elkhorn on the west, you could not get here on Rio Linda or Dry Creek or Raley, and 16th you could not get here, at least to this part of town, you couldn’t get here on Elkhorn from the east. I felt very strongly at that time that we needed to accelerate this project ahead of its anticipated schedule to try and increase the ability of people to be able, here, to get out if they needed to and for people from the outside to get in if they needed to in order to assist.

"At the same time, there was in the early conceptual stages, an extension of the sewer interceptor from the Natomas area roughly to Citrus Heights. And there were essentially two general routes that were being considered. One was Elkhorn, the other would be to jog up and more or less use Elverta Road. At that time, the planning on the interceptor had not reached the point where it was assured what the route, as I mentioned, would be; but more importantly it was not anticipated that the construction would occur until at least 2001 it’s now 2002 hopefully that construction will begin. And I felt that we could not wait to undertake the Elkhorn raising project as long as it would take to finally determine route and to tie in to the interceptor construction.

"At the time this construction work was done, it was contemplated that the interceptor would come along this route but it was also recognized by the transportation staff and I believe the Regional Sanitation District staff, or the water quality staff of the county, that they would have to try to install the interceptor to have the least conflict with the newly completed work that we have done here on Elkhorn. And I believe that is what has occurred, Jay, and that’s what will continue to occur as the final design and development of the interceptor routing is completed.

"Does that mean there will be no conflict? That there will be no disruption? No. I don’t think that we’re at the point where we can say for certain at least I’m not aware that we can say for certain that won’t occur. But I think it is fair to say that the water quality staff and the transportation staff are very aware of the issue and are working as hard as they can to make sure that any conflicts or disruption is minimized if not completely eliminated altogether.

"And I believe it is fair to say, the water quality staff can certainly correct me if I’m wrong in this, that at the time the local utilities were located on this extension of Elkhorn, for example the water district line, that conflict with the interceptor couldn’t be precisely calculated because we didn’t know precisely where the interceptor would go. And that at this point I believe unless I’m wrong, that we believe, that our staff believes, that the interceptor can be located without conflict with the water district line. And, as I said, with minimal disruption to the roadway.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [RL] Community Meeting yesterday
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 18:02:02 -0700
From: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
Reply-To: riolinda@vrx.net
To: Rio Linda Elverta Mailing List <riolinda@vrx.net>
CC: Roger Dickinson <rogerd@bos.co.sacramento.ca.us>

/snip/

Supervisor Dickinson made some brave timing statements about when the exact planned location of the Elkhorn Ditch (Upper Northwest Interceptor) was known, and he claimed that the information wasn't available when utility lines were moved to accommodate the Elkhorn widening project. He said, after asking for correction from staff (who was silent), "at the time the local utilities were located on this extension of Elkhorn, for example the water district line, that conflict with the interceptor couldn't be precisely calculated because we didn't know precisely where the interceptor would go."  I disagree with Supervisor Dickinson. They did know. My records show that the engineering plans, prepared for the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD) by Corrolo Engineers which show the exact location of the interceptor were dated "April 1999". The Water District drawings, showing the exact location of the moved water pipes, were submitted to the County in early May 1999. The County's approving signature, by Cheryl Creson, County Engineering Department Director, was affixed to the water district's plans on June 14, 1999. This, coupled with the SRCSD's timely EIR comment on the Elkhorn widening, in the EIR approved by the Board of Supervisors on May 12, 1998, stressing the need for close coordination, shows a distressing lack of communication within the County hierarchy.

/snip/

Supervisor Dickinson's response to me completely avoided the Elverta Ditch issue.  Curious! Click here to see my complete message and Supervisor Dickinson's response in context.