PAETE.ORG FORUMS
Paetenians Home on the Net

HOME | ABOUT PAETE | USAP PAETE MUNISIPYO  | MEMBERS ONLY  | PICTORIAL PAETE | SINING PAETE  | LINKS  |

FORUM GUIDELINES
please read before posting

USAP PAETE Forum Index USAP PAETE
Discussion Forums for the people of Paete, Laguna, Philippines
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch    UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Proposed MRF-landfill and WasteWater Treatment
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic   printer-friendly view    USAP PAETE Forum Index -> Usap Paete
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
guestrider/rey bagalso
Guest





PostPosted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 12:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear mayor,
I've been an avid supporter of yours from day one, and i will go to war with you, but my own position is always "what is right". My assumption is all based on what i read in this forum and i can honestly says the dissemnation of information does not go thru the chain of command. Doubts will be there and Angel has all the information and the VM is left high and dry. I also mention that as duly elected official, both you should get together, work together for the benefit of all of us. We all know animosity and bickering is not healthy, but i rather have a foot in my mouth, than run around like a chicken with the head cut off. Your clearing the air is good enough for me and at least give me a credit for not hiding behind "guest". Wish you all a positive news on August 5.
Back to top
adedios
SuperPoster


Joined: 06 Jul 2005
Posts: 5060
Location: Angel C. de Dios

PostPosted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I will try for the last time to clarify what Paete is facing:

First, there is perhaps a misunderstanding of what "temporary" means when it comes to a dumpsite. This is "temporary" because another solution is required, hopefully, a better one. Now, there is nothing "temporary" regarding the impact of a dumpsite on the environment. Almost a year has passed, I do not know how much garbage is already in the dumpsite. The biology and chemistry inside the dumpsite is fairly complicated. The effects of a dumpsite are actually more serious than that of a landfill. The word "landfill" maybe bringing back to life very negative impressions from the past, but the reality is that the dumpsite is not a better option. I am not saying that Paete is choosing this option, but the reality is that inaction at this point is choosing that option. Some may wonder why I feel that this is an urgent issue - I do, precisely because Paete is currently using the uplands for a dumpsite.

Both dumpsites and landfills will bring a serious blow to the land. Dumpsites need to be remediated, this is very expensive and hazardous. In addition to sanitation concerns, the structural integrity of a dumpsite prevents its use for future buildings. Garbage is not a filling material. Thus, in both cases, dumpsites and landfills, the land has been compromised and given its final fate - an eco-park. From the very first moment the lot in sitio Sta. Ana has been used as a dumping site, its fate has been decided.

This is the important thing that stays in my mind and that is why for all the options out there, the one currently standing a good chance to get funding from LISCOP, I think, is an opportunity that Paete should not waste. The other options are worse. Creating a second site makes Paete's impact on the uplands twice as big. It is more costly, it will require not just direct access to that alternative site, but access as well from the dumpsite in Sta. Ana, which will be necessary to remediate the current dumpsite. Since only the dumpsite in Sta. Ana is being used - construction of roads will prolong the use of a dumpsite instead of a landfill.

Unless one thinks that continuing a dumpsite in sitio Sta. Ana is no big deal then finding a solution at this time is indeed a priority. This post of mine on this topic hopefully makes it much clearer why Paete needs to act and it needs to act now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
kanoel



Joined: 07 Jul 2005
Posts: 401
Location: Mayor Emmanuel Cadayona

PostPosted: Sun Jul 31, 2011 5:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Rey,
Thank you for your understanding. I was not going to post any comment to rebut the alegations of the Vice Mayor as I thought it might worsen the already muddled isue. But it was your impression that I deceived the Vice Mayor and the SB and that I have not been honest that really got me; and I can’t blame you for that from what the Vice Mayor has been feeding here at USAP. But if you will read between the lines of my posting, you will clearly see that we were not remiss in our part to inform the SB and the VM. Assuming that he missed something that he needs, or forget that they were already in their possession of failed to read a committee report; he has all the means to get whatever he needs without using the USAP para “mambulabug”. Spoon feeding is only for babies, he has all the power to get any information he needs. Obviously, Prof. Angel de Dios is more resourceful than the Vice Mayor.

Like you said, we hope the air will be cleared on August 5. Again thank you for understanding.

Regards,
Ka Noel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kanoel



Joined: 07 Jul 2005
Posts: 401
Location: Mayor Emmanuel Cadayona

PostPosted: Sun Jul 31, 2011 6:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nagmamasid,
Maraming salamat po sa inyong panawagan. Sa issue lang pong ito kami hindi nagkakasundo ni Vice Mayor at iginagalang ko po ang kanyang paninindigan. Ang kanyang pamamaraan lang ng pagpaparating sa mga taong bayan ang aking tinututulan na sa pamamagitan ng USAP ay pinalalabas na ako ang laging sinisisi sa mga bagay na hindi niya nalalaman o naiintindihan.

Umaasa po ako na ang lahat ay magtitining sa gaganaping pagpupulong sa ika 5 ng Agosto.

Ka Noel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kanoel



Joined: 07 Jul 2005
Posts: 401
Location: Mayor Emmanuel Cadayona

PostPosted: Sun Jul 31, 2011 10:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear TLee,

I'm sorry if I'm still bickering, but there are still some who needs further clarification.
Tlee, I understand the importance of bringing this issue to each and every household, but it is quite impractical to make a house to house information dissemination campaign. We do it through channel: from the Municipal Waste Management Board; to the Punong Barangay; to a selected key stake holders and the Sangguniang Bayan.
In due time the SB will conduct a public hearing on this issue. All inputs will be deliberated and argued during their sessions, but like I said, any opinion outside of the Sangguniang Bayan will be mere opinion and suggestions and it will be the Sangguniang Bayan, the dully instituted representative of the people of Paete who will make the final decision.
Thanks for your input.
Ka Noel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GUEST
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 6:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TIGILAN NA NATIN ANG MGA PAGTATALO AT SIRAAN NG SIRAAN MAYOR AT VICE MAYOR. MAHIRAP TALAGA MAILAGAY SA AYOS ANG MGA PROJECT NA YAN KONG LAGING MAY KONTRA BAKIT DI NINYO AYUSIN SA MAGANDANG SALITAAN

NA BASA DIN NAMIN ANG MGA UNANG POST NI VICE DITO SA USAP KAYA LANG WALANG SAGOT SI MAYOR. KAYA MARAMI ANG NAG ISIP NA SI MAYOR ANG MAY KASALANAN NG LAHAT, NGAYON MALIWANAG NA ANG LAHAT, MAGBATI NA KAYO AT IKAW NAMAN VICE TRABAHO MUNA WAIT FOR YOUR TURN. O BAKA NAMAN DI MO IPAPOST ITO VICE DAHIL ISA KA SA MODERATOR NITONG USAP PAETE, DI NAMAN ITO BOMBA PARA MA-CENSOR NINYO GUSTO LANG NAMIN TRABAHO MUNA KAYONG DALAWA PARA SA BAYAN NG PAETE. OK BA SA INYO?.
Back to top
adedios
SuperPoster


Joined: 06 Jul 2005
Posts: 5060
Location: Angel C. de Dios

PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 9:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It would be helpful to keep in mind that a good and effective solid waste management has two components: finance and discipline.

The current proposed sanitary landfill and materials recovery facility (SLF/MRF) will require both. The financial aspect of the proposed project estimates the cost at about 12 million pesos. Once again, in the current proposal, about half of this would be a grant from LISCOP, while the remaining would be a loan payable in 15 years at 12% p.a. interest. This means Paete would be paying about 650,000 pesos per year for the first three years and about 850,000 pesos per year for the remaining 12 years of the loan. This financing not only provides an SLF but also an MRF. It will also address the rehabilitation of the dumpsite in sitio Sta. Ana since that is the same site for this project.

This is only the financial aspect. The discipline: reduce, reuse and recycle. The effectiveness of the MRF will rely on the discipline of the people of Paete. Segregation needs to begin at home. It is important that the residual waste is cut to a minimum so that the SLF would have a longer life. In addition, only with discipline, would the people of Paete be able to generate revenue and save resources from the MRF. There is a reason why the vice mayor, the municipal engineer and members of the Sangguniang Bayan visited the SLF/MRF of Kalayaan. This is what Paete is proposing to follow.

I remember when the use of plastic was being discussed. Ka Noel did a survey with the help of the barangay captains on the makeup of household waste. I even remember that the first numbers that reached me were off the charts and they had to be corrected. But in the end, it was decided that for Paete to tackle its plastic waste, the best way is to ban the use of nonbiodegradable plastic in Paete. Measures like these are part of the proposed solid waste management plan of Paete.

The success of the solid waste management program of Los Baños is attributed to the discipline factor. I think the former mayor who is now vice governor of Laguna makes a point to emphasize that he even held office near the waste processing center to ensure that the municipal leaders are always kept aware of the present conditions of the center. I am not suggesting that Ka Noel move the plaza and the hall to sitio Sta. Ana, I think the fact that Tatlong Krus is nearby will make the proposed SLF/MRF present always in the eyes, and especially, the noses, of the people of Paete.

Los Baños faced a very difficult problem at the turn of the century. It had an open dumpsite and it was spending about 4 million pesos annually for its waste collection. Los Baños also had two applications for a SLF rejected by the DENR and the board of the University of the Philippines. Los Baños because of its geophysical location makes it impossible to find a site for a SLF.

The discipline factor of the Los Baños program involves a significant reduction in residual waste. This, I believe, is an objective, that Paete will follow and I have confidence that Paete will reach this objective. From that survey years ago on the makeup of household waste from Paete, I think, a significant reduction is possible. Los Baños takes pride in the discipline as well as the involvement of everyone in their solid waste management program. UPLB had provided a great deal of technical assistance. For example, more efficient microorganisms have been identified for composting and I am hoping that Paete would use some of these newly found methods and technology in its proposed MRF.

Los Baños, however, does not claim that there was no financial aspect of the program. What Los Baños claims is that without discipline and only finance, the program will not work. The Los Baños program was not free. I do not have the exact numbers but one could see that rehabilitation of their dumpsite could not have been free. The construction of their waste processing center could not have been free. Their continued use of an SLF (I think it is the one in San Pedro) is not free. For the waste processing center, the municipal government, for example, used 20% of its annual income. Los Baños is a first class municipality and I think its 2004 annual income was about 80 million pesos so 20% is roughly 16 million pesos. This was the contribution from the municipal government. Other sectors contributed - I do not have those numbers. Just for the discipline component - in one instance, the seed money to organize the scavengers - was about 1 million pesos - and this was a grant/loan from Australia.

I think it is good that alternatives are being explored but in fairness to the current proposed project, these alternatives must come with their financial costs as well so that these could be fairly compared with what is currently proposed.

LISCOP provides funding for subprojects in municipalities in Laguna, Rizal and Cavite. LISCOP has seen applications not only from Paete. These proposed subprojects have been seen and read not just by LISCOP but personnel from the World Bank. I think these likewise need to be considered.


---------------

I am trying to get the financial numbers for the effort in Los Baños. So far, from a database of the United Nations, it lists a financial profile for the work done in collaboration with the Los Baños Science Community Foundation, Inc. This work which includes the education and mobilization of the community (this, I believe is separate from the infrastructure required by the program). The financial profile states from 2001-2006, an amount of 7 million pesos. I will post here if I receive/find additional financial info.

The discipline factor is likewise not free. It also requires money. For example, in 2008, Konsehal Gajitos wrote the following:

"Ang kabuuang naging gastos para sa Environmental Awareness Campaign ay Tatlong Daan Limampu’t Anim na Libo, Pitong Daan Apatnapu’t apat at Apatnapu’t Limang Sentimo (P356,744.45)."

So, it would not be surprising that the 7 million figure above for Los Baños was for this type of expenses.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
leeq



Joined: 07 Jul 2005
Posts: 304
Location: Lee Quesada

PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 6:28 pm    Post subject: kaNoel understand & agree the impracticallity on your si Reply with quote

kaNoel,
i do understand the impracticality on your side, but one thing i note in general isit seems hardwork in the literal sense of the word, is mostly missing with most Filipino leaders..... let me tell you an example of political hardwork:

2 weeks ago here in the Municipality of Toronto, our brand new mayor (a businessman, first time politician) hired a consulting firm (the KPMG) to look into the various ways that city hall can cut and trim the budgets of agencies, education boards and commissions. KPMG urges the city to sell parking lots, contract out the Toronto Transit Commission Wheel Trans program, eliminate late-night TTC bus service, shut down some public library branches and reduce hours at others, sell the Toronto Zoo, reduce police salaries, reduce nos of firemen, eliminate or reduce dental health programs and sell or integrate city-run arts theatres.

with these cuts strong protest arouse from the city folks, households, children, students......so the Mayor invited everyone living in the city to attend an Open Session where every attendee will have 4 minutes to voice his/her opinion via a microphone. more than 400 city residents came and the meeting lasted from 3 pm until 5 am the following morning; an all-night meeting!. the mayor said: we will be here to answer questions and listen for as long as it takes, i will be here for 3 days if it takes that long.

now, that is an example of hard work for the people!
still luv you and remain your fan and supporter as always,
tlee
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
whernas2001



Joined: 08 Sep 2007
Posts: 858
Location: beijing, china

PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 10:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sa Kinauukulan magandang Araw Po

Ako po ay patuloy na nakasubaybay sa usaping ito tungkol sa proyekto...

Magalang ko pong ilahad bilang isang mamamayan na pansamantalang naghahanapbuhay sa ibang lugar ang nasa loob patungkol dito..Para po sa akin sangayon po ako kay Mam Leeq sa kanyang sinabi tungkol dito, napakagandang puntos na ipatawag ang mga mamamayan lalo na ang mga nagsasaka...kung ano ang kanilang saloobin...at naniniwala po ako na meron din silang mga suhestyon para sa proyektong pangkalusugan at kalinisan.

Sa Proyektong ito ng WWTF at sa nakita kong Post ay halos nawala na ang mga kapalayanan sa ibaba ng Highway nakakalungkot isipin na para isang proyektong ito ay mawawalan ng sakahan ang matatamaan nito mawawala na ang natural na kapaligiran at mapapalitan ng dike at WWTF...

Salamat Po
_________________
what is life without something
whernas2001@yahoo.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
batman
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 3:31 am    Post subject: WWTF Reply with quote

Mabuti naman at maraming concern sa kalagayan ng pollution at problema sa basura na siyang unti unting pumapatay sa ating dagat Laguna bay,ang basura at pollution ay global concern di laang sa mga developing countries but most of all to more developed countries na may mga nuclear power.Pero ang pollution ng Laguna lake ay problema ng buong Laguna at Rizal provinces.Ang concern ng ating pamahalaan sa Paete ay napakabuting halimabawa sa ikabubuti ng ating laguna lake.Pero kong iisipin ang magiging gastos ay wika nga ay impossibleng isakatuparan pag walang concern ang ating gobyerno,dapat talaga ay maging isang proyekto ito ng ating gobyerno na siyang makapagbibigay ng badget para sa katuparan at sa ikaliligtas ng Laguna lake.Yong mga proposed project na iniisip ng iba ay maigi sa aking palagay gawang ang ating bayan ay napakakitid na ang Paete ay isa sa may kakitiran ang lugar sa Laguna,just look at google maps,saan kayo maglalagay ng dike?o tambakan ng basura?dati ang mga palayan sa atin ay malaking lugar ngayon halos wala na mga residential area na,ang Paete ay over popullated na,ito ay isa laang na wika ng ay hantungan ng ikamamatay ng ating mahal na dagat pag hindi pinansin ng ating gobyerno,akoy tubong atin at laging nagbabasa sa usap.good luck na laang vice Mutuk sa lahat ng iyong ginagawa sa ikabubuti ng ating bayan,ang masasabi ko ay wag na sanang magsisihan mabuti magtulungan...nakikisingit laang, mabuhay ang Paete at Laguna lake,,,
Back to top
adedios
SuperPoster


Joined: 06 Jul 2005
Posts: 5060
Location: Angel C. de Dios

PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 12:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is an estimate I have (using data from Conexor) for an alternative proposal (one that uses a landfill somewhere else):

For a municipality of 25,000 residents, the initial investment for a waste processing center or materials recovery facility is (1.6 million pesos per 10000 residents) 4 million pesos.

The residual waste would need to be transported to a landfill. Again, using Conexor numbers and this is in agreement with the observation of Vice Mutuk that Paete currently produces 2-3 mini dump trucks of residual garbage per day (these are currently thrown into the controlled dumpsite in sitio Sta. Ana), Paete will need to haul 20 trucks of residual garbage per month and following what Los Baños does, Paete may be able to use the landfill in San Pedro. The tipping fee is 6000 pesos per truck. 1000 pesos per truck would probably be a good estimate for the fuel costs. Thus, for the residual waste, Paete will spend 7000 times 20 times 12 = about 1.7 million pesos. Since the dumpsite in sitio Sta. Ana had been used for a year now, transferring that garbage would be equivalent to the same number above, 1.7 million pesos. This is a very low estimate for the cleanup costs required for the dumpsite in sitio Sta. Ana. For the first year, Paete will spend on this alternative proposal:

MRF: 4 million pesos
Tipping Fee and Fuel for first year: 3.4 million pesos
Total: 7.4 million pesos

Tipping Fee and fuel for succeeding years (per year): 1.7 million pesos

This could now be compared against paying about 650,000 pesos per year for the first three years and about 850,000 pesos per year for the remaining 12 years of the loan for the proposed MRF-SLF subproject under LISCOP. By the way, for those who are in the US, it maybe helpful to think in terms of dollars, these numbers roughly convert to 1300 USD per month for the first three years and 1700 USD per month for the next twelve years - this way, you could see that the numbers here are of the same magnitude as a 15-year mortgage for a small single family home (250,000 USD, 3 bedroom, 1 1/2 bath) in the United States.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
cvafuang
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 2:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

adedios wrote:
The financial aspect of the proposed project estimates the cost at about 12 million pesos. Once again, in the current proposal, about half of this would be a grant from LISCOP, while the remaining would be a loan payable in 15 years at 12% p.a. interest. This means Paete would be paying about 650,000 pesos per year for the first three years and about 850,000 pesos per year for the remaining 12 years of the loan. This financing not only provides an SLF but also an MRF. It will also address the rehabilitation of the dumpsite in sitio Sta. Ana since that is the same site for this project.


Prof:

....so based on the above, the total interest for the 6M loan (12M x 50%) will be about as much or 6.15M (see below), right?
1st 3 yrs = 650,000 x 3 = 1,950,000
next 12 yrs = 850,000 x 12 = 10,200,000
Total =12,150,000 - 6,000,000 (orig loan) =6,150,000 (total int)

Question: does the above est. total cost of 12.15M inclusive of other expenses, like materials, labor & other overhead, that will be incurred in running/maintaining the landfill & MRF for 15yrs?

cesar
Back to top
adedios
SuperPoster


Joined: 06 Jul 2005
Posts: 5060
Location: Angel C. de Dios

PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 3:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cesar;

Your calculation is correct. Although interest is relatively high compared to what we are used to here in the US, the total payments become comparable because of the 3-year grace period given at the beginning. The interest rate in the Philippines is quite high compared to what we have here in the US.

I do not have the details (unlike the waste water treatment) of the proposed SLF/MRF, but the number probably came from the recent project in Kalayaan. Guessing from the WTF, operating costs are probably not included, but I think the machinery will be. The other alternative likewise does not contain the operating costs. In both estimates, the operation of the MRF (which will be the bulk of the operating costs) will be self-sustaining. In the alternative, I likewise do not have the cost of a new dump truck - if Paete uses the mini dump trucks - these will probably double the fuel costs and I would not know how much the tipping fee is for each mini dump truck. The tipping fee is not guaranteed to remain at that level and the availability of the landfill in San Pedro for Paete to use is likewise uncertain.

LISCOP insists that the labor and materials for any of its subprojects come from the locality, if at all, possible. Not included in the proposed MRF/SLF subproject is the fact that the construction of this project will be an addition to Paete's economy. The project under LISCOP will likewise come with technical assistance as well as much needed financial audit, which an alternative option may not have.

-Angel

Pahabol:

The other option also requires about 7 million pesos in the first year - if Paete borrows this as a loan (assuming that there is a lender out there) then Paete will face similar amounts of loan payments in addition to the residual waste cost. Do not forget that with the LISCOP project, Paete avoids half the cost of the project because this is provided as a grant. The other option will not have this.


Last edited by adedios on Thu Aug 04, 2011 4:36 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
whernas2001



Joined: 08 Sep 2007
Posts: 858
Location: beijing, china

PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 3:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Prof Angel...

Nabasa ko din po ang tungkol sa mga Farmers na may ari ng lupa at sabi nga ay mag oopen sila ng maliit na negsyo sa perang kanilang makukuha para mabuhay...kung yan ang sabi nila ay wala po tayong magagawa at kung alam nila gagamitin ang bukid nila para sa proyekto WWTF ay siguro nga ay ayaw na nilang magsaka o makipaghabulan sa panahon sa lugar na laging inilulubog ng baha taon taon...kaya ang sumugal sa bisnes naman ang kanilang haharapin kung sakali at matuloy ang proyektong ito...

Sana nga ay tama ang desisyon nila, na maaring ayaw man nila ay papayag na rin dahil nga ito ay proyekto ng gobyerno...

Kaya sa tingin ko ay ang WWTF naman ang isusubok sa lugar kung saan ay kitang kita natin kung paano ilubog ng baha taon taon ang lugar na ito....

Dahil napakahaba sa dami ng pahina ay medyo kakailanganin ang maraming oras..di ko pa rin nababasang lahat...subalit mas mabilis na magpaliwanag ang nakapost na larawan.

Salamat po at magandang araw sa inyo..
_________________
what is life without something
whernas2001@yahoo.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
adedios
SuperPoster


Joined: 06 Jul 2005
Posts: 5060
Location: Angel C. de Dios

PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 6:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cesar;

By the way, the other option I am presenting here is what Paete will have to face if the LISCOP project does not push through:

So, to summarize;

MRF : 4 million pesos
residual waste: 1.7 million pesos (this is probably underestimated, it assumes that Paete will produce only 20 trucks of waste per month)
controlled dumpsite transfer of waste: 1.7 million pesos
1 dump truck (since Paete does not have one) : 1 million pesos

Total: 8.4 million pesos

Yearly reoccurring residual waste cost : 1.7 million pesos

Total for 15 years: 32.2 million pesos

If Paete borrows the initial first year cost of 8.4 million pesos at terms that are as favorable as the LISCOP loan - additional interest of 8.4 million pesos:

Grand total 40.6 million pesos.

Now, this is not a completely fair comparison. The landfill in the proposed project may not last 15 years. So, if we assume that we are only talking here 7 years then we should subtract 8*1.7 million from the residual waste cost, the grand total still sums to 23 million pesos.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Guest






PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 10:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

adedios wrote:
Cesar;

By the way, the other option I am presenting here is what Paete will have to face if the LISCOP project does not push through:

So, to summarize;

MRF : 4 million pesos
residual waste: 1.7 million pesos (this is probably underestimated, it assumes that Paete will produce only 20 trucks of waste per month)
controlled dumpsite transfer of waste: 1.7 million pesos
1 dump truck (since Paete does not have one) : 1 million pesos

Total: 8.4 million pesos


Prof:

Are all the above costs integral part of the alternative? I thought all or at least most of these costs are exactly what can be avoided if we go the "San Pedro" way. My impression was that for paying the fee, the garbage will simply be transported to San Pedro and they will do the rest....pardon me but I really have no idea how this works.

cesar
Back to top
adedios
SuperPoster


Joined: 06 Jul 2005
Posts: 5060
Location: Angel C. de Dios

PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 5:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cesar;

Unfortunately, this is how the other option looks. It really would hurt Paete if it has to spend money to take care of his residual waste by using another town's landfill.

I also recently heard that the current mayor of Los Baños mentioned that in addition to the tipping fee, their truck driver takes the risk of being assaulted by residents of San Pedro who are not happy that Los Baños is using their landfill.

Vice governor Perez, the former mayor of Los Baños had informed Ka Noel that during his term (several years ago), Los Baños spent more than 1 million pesos to remediate their dumpsite and another million pesos to build their waste processing center (the cost here is smaller because Los Baños was able to get a lot of donated equipment). And currently, Los Baños spends 12,000 pesos per day (just for the tipping fee) for their residual waste - that is why in the research paper that I saw from the University of Toronto describing waste management in the Philippines, it lists Los Baños with an annual expenditure of almost 5 million pesos on residual waste. The estimate from Paete that I received is much higher than what I wrote here - they estimate about 3 million pesos per year - I am a lot more optimistic with the materials recovery so I am assuming a lot less residual waste.

Having its own landfill helps Paete a lot (Of course, this comes with an enivironment sacrifice, the proposed SLF/MRF project is not perfect, but it is much better than this option).

Paete is not spending this much yet on its residual waste because it is using a controlled dumpsite, but without the proposed SLF/MRF project, Paete would no longer be able to continue its current dumping so this scenario of 1.7 to 3 million pesios a year for residual waste will kick in. Plus the additional million pesos to remediate the current controlled dumpsite.

-Angel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
adedios
SuperPoster


Joined: 06 Jul 2005
Posts: 5060
Location: Angel C. de Dios

PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 6:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anonymous wrote:


My impression was that for paying the fee, the garbage will simply be transported to San Pedro and they will do the rest....pardon me but I really have no idea how this works.

cesar


The sad part of this issue is that it could easily be misunderstood. People could easily be misinformed and this could be done for political gain. The lack of proactive efforts on some leaders on this issue is something I could not comprehend. It is as if the problem does not exist. Or there is always that thinking that there is a cheaper alternative out there.

I should add that the FS/DAED, for example, as posted here by Vice Mutuk, was done by LLDA and the World Bank - this work alone costs 1 million pesos but LLDA had been generous enough to shoulder this cost using a grant from the Netherlands. And it was really sad that the presentation of this FS/DAED was not even attended by some of Paete's leaders.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
adedios
SuperPoster


Joined: 06 Jul 2005
Posts: 5060
Location: Angel C. de Dios

PostPosted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 6:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Salient points of the SLF/MRF - WWTF meeting (August 5, 2011) with LLDA and World Bank:

(1) The SLF/MRF was presented first by Susan Tolentino of LLDA.

(2) The WWTF was presented next by Engr. Joe Mari Lim of World Bank

(3) Questions raised:

(a) Where is the FS & DAED of the SLF/MRF?

LLDA said its Paete's Mun. Engr. who is preparing these.
Engr. Viray said both will be completed in 30 days.

(b) Is there a substantial difference between what we plan to do in Paete and the facilities in Kalayaan, which the Vice Mayor visited and a copy of the FS was provided?

LLDA confirmed that it will be a replica considering that the land area are almost identical.

(c) Is it possible for an extension to be granted in case there will be a problem with the acquisition of the lot?

LLDA commented that it will be unlikely because of the lengthy processing of documents. There is apparently a lot for sale adjacent to the lot of Nel.
Engr. Viray informed the body that the ECC issued for the Sta. Ana site is non transferable and that it will be like going back to zero.

(d) What should be done if the pond is covered with water lilies?

Engr Lim explained that a dike will be constructed to restrict water lilies, but if it will be inundated we just have to remove them manually.

(e) Will the WWTF have foul odor?

Engr. Lim said he is confident that it is unlikely.

(f) A picture of Wawa park was shown where the site is located and pointed out that months of August and Sept, there are excessive water lilies in the area. It was suggested that Paete can do away with the constructed wet land because the water lilies would do the job.

Engr. Lim pointed out that the plants must be contained to effectively clean the water.

(g) It was suggested further that several ABRs are built instead of a wetland.

Engr. Lim pointed out that although the ABR helps in reduction of waste it is the wet land that would do the final filtration.

(h) A suggestion was made to remove the slaughter house and relocate it where it cannot pollute the lake.

(i) Are there other requirements LLDA needs to finalize the agreement.

They said for the WWTF all documents are complete, even the bid documents. They are just waiting for the appropriation ordinance from the SB. For the SLF/MRF as soon as the FS and DAED are completed, they will prepare the Bid documents and after receipt of the appropriation ordinance Paete can already proceed.

World Bank also affirmed their commitment to the WWTF project up to the construction and commissioning stage free of charge. They also informed Paete that the FS and DAED worth P1MM was paid by LLDA from a Dutch grant.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Guest






PostPosted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 12:59 pm    Post subject: Abbreviations Reply with quote

can someone please spell out all those acronyms so people would know what they stand for? I know some of them but not all, e.g. ECC, ABR, etc.

Salamat po

DAED - Detailed Architectural and Engineering Design
FS - Feasibility Study
ABR - Anaerobic Baffle Reactor (like a septic tank with 6 chambers)
ECC - environmental compliance certificate
SLF - Sanitary Landfill
MRF - Materials Recovery Facility
WWTF - Waste Water Treatment Facility
LLDA - Laguna Lake Development Authority
SB - Sangguniang Bayan
Back to top
Mario Ramos
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 4:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So, is the recommedation to go ahead with the projects? I have not heared frome Vice Mutuk, what is his "SAY"?
Back to top
mutuk
Forum Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 1860
Location: Vice mayor Rojilyn Bagabaldo

PostPosted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 8:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paumanhin kung naging tahimik ako nitong nakaraang mga araw. Binigyan puwang ko lang po ang kahilingan ni Tlee at inantay ko munang matapos ang Aug. 5 meeting.

Siguro naman po ay malinaw na sa lahat batay sa mga pahayag ni Angel na ang lahat ay halos plantsado na. MRF/SLF at WWTF.

Paano po baga nagsimula ang talakayang ito?


http://www.paete.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=10946

March 4, 2011 po ng ako ay tumugon sa kahilingan ng Punongbayan na magbigay ako ng ng pahayag ukol sa landfill issue sa Sitio Sta. Ana at malinaw naman po sa link na yung deed of danation ang aking kinukwestyon. At alam na naman po siguro ng nakakarami kung ano ang naging tugon at pahayag ng nagdonate ng lupa na hindi niya alam dahil hindi sinabi sa kanya na ito pala ay pagtatapunan at gagawing landfill. Malinaw po yun , di ako tumutol sa pagkakaroon ng landfill.


Dito naman sa WWTF

Malinaw po ang aking reaction na hindi ito ibinalik sa hapag ng Sangguniang Bayan (batay na rin sa usapan) upang ito ay pag aralan kung okey at ng mapagtibay muna. Sa mga ganitong transaksyon lalo at utang, bago ito mapagtibay ng SB ay kailangang mailahad sa mga mamamayan sa pamamagitan ng pampublikong pagdinig ngunit walang naganap. May sinasabing paglalahad daw kasama ang 5 Konsehal ngunit kapansin pansin na hindi nakumbida ang iba. Wala pong napatala sa aming katitikan ng anumang imbitasyon para dun. (Lahat po ng ganung komunikasyon ay binabanggit at itinatala sa regular na pagpupulong ng SB).


Ako po ang naglahad ng mga larawan noong Aug. 5, meeting.

Ang una ko pong tanong ay kung nakakalinis ang water lilies ng tubig. ( Nakakalinis daw po ang tugon)
Pangalawa ko pong tanong ay kung nakakalinis din ang ang palay sa tubig. (lahat daw po ng halamang tubig ay nakakalinis ng tubig).
Tumayo po ako at ipinakita ang aking mga obserbasyon


Ito pong nasa ibaba ay kuha ko nung Aug. 4, 2011







Napakakapal na po ng water lilies sa atin kapalayanan dahil sa taas ng tubig.





Sa pagpasok po ng buwan ng tag ulan (June) ay inaabandona na ng mga magsasaka ang kanilang sakahan sa libis ng highway at malaya ng tumutubo ang mga halaman at sumusulpot na ang mga water lilies. Nagiging natural wetland ang napakalaking bahagi ng mga palayan sa libis ng highway papuntang lawa. Sa halos 6 na buwan ay nagiging natural wetland ang lugar at nalilinis ang tubig.


Ito naman po ay kuha ko nung April 2, 2011




Ang kanal #6 po ay hindi halata pero yun po yung unang bunton sa bandang kaliwa mula sa daan papuntang Wawa. At hindi daw po lahat ng tubig sa kanal #6 ay papasok sa proposed WWTF dahil hindi kakayanin ng disenyo.

Kapansin pansin na ang mga tanim na palay ay nagsisilbi ding panlinis ng tubig sa kadahilanang ang tubig mula sa mga kanal ay nagsisilbing patubig na dumadaan sa malaking bahagi at ibang ibang pitak bago tuluyang mapunta sa lawa. Ako din po ang nag bukas sa issue na hindi dapat nakasaklang sa ilog ang slaugtherhouse natin.

Sabihin na po natin na milyon daw ang ginastos sa pag gawa ng FS at DAED at kalahati daw ang grant, dahilan na po ba yun na huwag na nating sa SB at sa taong bayan para pagtalakayan at pag usapan at gawin na agad at kalimutan na ang proseso?

Ngayon sa akin pong mga inilahad at kapansin pansin na halos plansado na ang lahat.




MOA signing na daw po bukas Aug. 9, 2011 10 am sa PES gayong ngayon pa lang (Aug. 8, Monday) ang session ng SB para pagtalakayan ang Appropriation Ordinance na kailangan para tuluyang maipagawa ang WWTF sub-project.





Kayo na po ang humusga kung ako ay namumulitika o nagtatrabaho lang na ipaalam sa inyo ang dapat nyong malaman.

_________________
Rojilyn "Mutuk" Quiachon Bagabaldo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Guest
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 10:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Vice-Mayor,

Aba, ay HINDI BA LABAG SA BATAS kung ganon ang ginawa ng 5 konsehal?

At kung walang nakatala sa inyong komunikasyon at dapat silang KASUHAN!

Pwede kayang paki-post dito kung sino-sino ang mga konsehal na gumawa ng maling paraan para lng mapagbigyan ang proyektong yan?
Back to top
Mario Ramos
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 10:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ngayon, maliwanag pa sa sikat ng araw, Vice. Alam ng lahat ang nangyayari sa ating bayan. Nasa likod mo kami. Ipaglaban natin ang katuwiran. Vice, huwag nating pabayaang gawin ng harapan sa ating maliliit ang basta pagdidikta ng mga mayroon at may kapangyarihan.
Back to top
Guest
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Aug 08, 2011 12:06 am    Post subject: WWT Reply with quote

Vice Mutuk,

With due respect, kung susundan po yung puntos ninyo na nagiging natural wetlands yung mga palayan, na ang implikasyon ay yoon na lang ang gawing wetlands, ay kapansin pansin po na hindi sapat o epektibo, gawa ng hindi pa rin malinis ang Lawa. At kung kalahati lang ng taon nagagamit sa pamamalayan yung mga lupang iyon, ay hindi rin optimo ang gamit ng mga magsasaka. At kung yun pong mga palay ang lumilinis sa tubig, ay ayaw ko na pong kainin yung kanin galing doon. Hindi po win-win ung solusyon na yoon, kundi paurong.

Mayroon na po tayong pagkakataon na pinalagpas ninyo, sana naman ay may makita kaming aksyon na positibo ngayon. Pagkakataon na po nating kumilos ng pasulong ay sana ay pasulong ang makita natin dito. Paala-ala lang po na ang Paete ay progresibong bayan.

Yun pong utang na hindi ninyo malagpasan pag-isipan (dahil siguro iniisip ninyo na magiging meyor kayo tulad ng speculation ni Mr. Ramos, and I quote,"Vice Mutuk now seem to change his position toward such project possibly because the burden shall be on him once he becomes the next Mayor or at the moment he might want to be on the neutral side because of the upcoming campaign.") ay pag hindi nangyari ngayon, ay mas malaki pong gastos at utang ang ipapamana ninyo sa mga taga Paete.
Sana po ay yung vision ninyo ay malagpasan yung red tape at bureaucracy na pumipigil sa pagkilos. Hindi rin po sapat na dahilan ang red tape at bureaucracy sa hindi pagkilos ng SB nitong mga nagdaang araw kung kaya ngat nauntol o walang prosesong naganap.

[bureaucracy: An administrative system in which the need or inclination to follow rigid or complex procedures impedes effective action: innovative ideas that get bogged down in red tape and bureaucracy.]
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic   printer-friendly view    USAP PAETE Forum Index -> Usap Paete All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 2 of 9

 
Jump to:  
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group