Finally it arrives. The Fiesta “Float Construction Agreement” between FIESTA and the City of Mission Viejo which is dated September, tbd 2008.
“Pg 5, item VI WITHDRAWAL BY MISSION VIEJO
In the event Mission Viejo should instruct or cause FIESTA not to complete the float or not to drive it in the PARADE, it is recognized that FIESTA can only construct a certain number of floats and in agreeing to construct the float for MISSION VIEJO, it must reject the opportunity to display it’s work in the parade, the exact amount of which would be extremely difficult and impractical to fix, it is therefore agreed that if such instruction or causing to be given after August 25, 2008, for any reason other than as a result of FIESTA’s negligence, willful misconduct or material breach of this contract, FIESTA is entitled to be paid its actual costs through the date of termination plus $30,000.00, but not to exceed $300,000.”
Wait a minute. Today is August 28, 2008. The city manager of the city of Mission Viejo has confirmed that “we do not have a design, there is no contract with FIESTA, and that we can legally walk away.”
As our city council will not meet until Sept 2, 2008 was there a secret agreement with FIESTA authorizing work to be performed prior to a council vote of approval?
How can we be held liable for costs after August 25th when that date has passed and the proposed contract is just being made available for public review and the city council has not voted on this item?
Although I can relate to FIESTA’s potential loss of revenue and exposure, the city manager and/or city council Ad Hoc committee apparently has left us unprotected and may have entered into an illegal handshake agreement with FIESTA.
Some additional facts.
Our application was accepted by the Tournament of Roses Association way back in March. I have a copy of a letter from Robert B Miller, Chairman, Float Entries Committee, dated March 25, 2008 where they extended an invitation for us to be a float participant in the 120th Tournament of Roses Parade. I also have our $3,700 “float participation fee” confirmation dated March 28, 2008 bearing the signature of city manager Dennis Wilberg.
Item #9 of the Sept 2, 2008 AGENDA REPORT from the Rose Parade Float Ad Hoc Committee reads in part:
“The contracted amount for the float is $300,000 which includes a turnkey product from design through to final construction. This effort also includes fuel and driving the float down the parade route. The city is under no financial obligation until after the final design is approved.”
Time out. Go back and read the FIESTA AGREEMENT. They want to be made whole for any cancellation after Aug 25th even though we have not entered into any agreement with them, or so we are told.
Is the city under a financial obligation or not? The Agenda report is in conflict with the agreement.
Incompetent. What an embarrassment.
Also. Notice Lance MacLean’s June 19, 2007 Motion, seconded by Frank Ury, to “set aside $300,000 for the potential of entering a float in the January 1, 2009, Rose Parade.”
How interesting when we have yet to select a design, which surely can alter the design and manufacturing costs, yet the AGREEMENT is for the exact same amount with the first installment of $75,000 due upon execution of this agreement.
Really there is no other course of action appropriate to this situation other than recalling Ury and MacLean, and demanding the termination for cause of Dennis Wilberg. Resignations should not be accepted and each should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
If they get away with this what then? What if your records weren’t published like this? How would an ordinary citizen even suspect that his city ws being ripped off – when it turned into Santa Ana?
Reply from Tim Estes, president, Fiesta Floats
To All : I made an error – The August 25 date was to be September 25. Thank God that Mr. Gilbert would never make a mistake.
OOPS, he stated the incorrect contract amount for the 2009 City of Torrance float.
OOPS, he stated the incorrect contract amount for the 2008 City of Santa Fe Springs float.
Since I have the signed contracts, I guess I would know.
OOPS, when he tried to compare, apples to apples, the City of Torrance float to the tentative Mission Viejo float, he did not realize that one apple was 3 times the size of the other apple. OOPS !
Gilbert reply to Mr. Estes:
August 28, 2008
Re: Proposed Agreement, Fiesta Parade Floats & City of Mission Viejo
Fiesta Parade Floats
Mr. Estes.
Let’s stay on point. OOPS! You claim to having made an error in the contract date. OK.
However, this proposed agreement is posted on the city’ web site. That’s where myself and any other interested party can download or view it. How is it that in addition to your staff that NO ONE at city hall discovered this obvious conflict?
As to your diversionary tactics to discredit my research. If I recall there was one year where Edison Intl spent one million dollars on a float. That was there decision and did not include direct taxpayer funds. As such, there is no ceiling on costs of these floats.
Being the city of Mission Viejo, where we build nearly a half million dollar outhouse in Melinda park, we could spend an enormous amount on the float. Of course the float cost will vary based on design, size, complexity, construction and overtime if needed if you start too late. I find it amazing that the $300,000 budgeted in June of 2007, without any idea of design, is the exact amount you are seeking from the city for your work.
To “spin” Torrance’s float being of a different size, therefore, not an “apples to apples” comparison than the one you are proposing for Mission Viejo, is irrelevant to the dollar amounts reported. Did they lie to me regarding the cost?
Did the City of Sante Fe Springs lie to me regarding their cost? I notice that you claim to have the contract(s) yet failed to state that original contract cost nor if there were additional charges. At this point I have made the case regarding a reasonable float cost. Simply look at LaCanada-Flintridege, Burbank or the city of Long Beach.
At the end of the day I noticed that you did not challenge the costs of the other seven city floats in my report. Note. Your comments follow.
They were the cities of Burbank, Cerritos, Huntington Beach, LaCanada-Flintridge, Long Beach, Roseville and Sierre Madre. As you may not be the vendor for those cities I can understand that you do not have that cost data.
It is sad that actions taken by our city council majority, or their delays in taking action, have dragged your fine well established firm into this ugly picture of incompetence and fiscal irresponsibility. Every city that I contacted is well on their way with their 2009 floats and have active fundraising to offset taxpayer funding. That is not the case in MV.