Mission Viejo trumps Wimbledon in spending money
Guest article on Mission Viejo from “Voters United”
Time To Say Goodbye
“Yes, it’s time to say goodbye to our incumbent city council members who have demonstrated that they, like many, many politicians serve their backers (the backers with money) instead of the voters who elected them.
As is demonstrated everyday, these officials make decisions, assumingly for our benefit, that are “in our face.” Those decisions “give” to a small percentage of citizens beyond what we authorize them to do.
The purpose of our governing city is to assure us that we have the ability to pursue some of our “wants” within the confines of being fair to all tax payers “needs’. There is a large difference between “wants” and “needs.” Our governing city’s responsibility is to provide a mechanism for its population to use in the pursuit of their “wants.” It is not the purpose of the city to provide those “wants, unless of course the “want” happens to be related to maintenance of security, education, parks, and roads. The city’s job is to “promote the general welfare —- not provide it.”
We should be wary enough about city operations to insist they do what is right for us citizens in light of our existing facilities and the “actual real need” for future facilities.
A prime example of this is the planned renovation of the Marguerite Tennis Center. How a 255 member tennis club could convince the city council that the city should pay for the addition of one more tennis court (at the cost of $3.7 million) is beyond belief. It is beyond belief because from past experience we can always expect to overrun a project of this magnitude anywhere from 50 to 100 percent. Kind of how the city of Bell’s city council let them selves be swayed into approval of funds that should never had been spent.
And did you know?…….. that quite a few Mission Viejo residents are completely unaware that the city wants to spend $3.7 million on an additional tennis court. We have to inform them.
Our city council seems to have been swayed by their own backers to spend this money regardless of its actual need. When MacLean was removed from office he stated publicly that this renovation was “desperately needed.” When members of the public requested that the city council explain the reason for the desperately needed additional court there was no answer. We wonder why. And how they can justify spending money on an unnecessary project in the face of reducing city workforce and city service is beyond belief.
Through the years of planning this renovation, three members of the city council always voted for it…..you know them as the MUKs….MacLean, Ury, and Kelley. Kelley is up for re-election and MacLean is trying to get back in. Ury is still in place. Ury also reminds us that the money is in the budget. So What! Budgets can be modified, especially when there is a high chance of reduced income from the state and property taxes. In the words of the people against Measure D….”.we should save money by waiting for the November elections to vote out anyone we didn’t want in office.” Well, November is almost here and we have the opportunity to correct what we unfortunately created when we voted the MUKs in. Note that Leckness is also running for election and has so far sided with the MUKs.
We have always said that the cost of the additional tennis court be funded by private funds. A good example of this process has recently surfaced regarding the dog park that dog owners “want.” Organizers of the effort to bring a dog park to the city said their drive was to show the community that proponents aren’t looking for handouts from the city. Yes, they believe rightly that it’s the city’s job to promote the general welfare — not provide it.
Thank you dog owners! It’s now the task of the tennis players to step forward and fund their “want.” The city should promote such action.
Until then we do not need to keep our incumbents in place to continue their effort to get themselves re-elected. Think about this, think about the city of Bell, think about our state’s representatives, and think about our nation’s representatives. We have to change our representatives starting at the grass roots level…….and that is Mission Viejo.
Thank you thinkers.
Voters United”
Gilbert comments. Although I strongly oppose this pending CIP, I would be remiss not to mention that the proposed $3.7 million cost includes renovation/replacement of the approx.1200 square foot clubhouse and installation of some new lighting.
What Voters United have overlooked in their article is the need to bring in 4,000 truck loads of dirt to realign the parking lot as they expand the scope of the project.
Marguerite is not the only city owned tennis center in Mission Viejo. The Felipe complex, just east of Marguerite Parkway, has 6 courts available for residents and non-resident tennis players where you can buy passes for said usage.
The same is true for Montanoso and Sierra rec centers, each of whom have two courts, but we will keep their tennis facilities out of the discussion so that the average resident will think that all Mission Viejo tennis players only perform at Marguerite.
While staff reports 400 users, only 63.2 percent are residents of Mission Viejo. Those 250 tennis players are divided between all four of our city owned and operated facilities. All four facilities are available for use.
If this project proceeds as approved they will be increasing from 7 to 8 courts by replacing one and adding another. Completion of this project will enable this “special interest” to provide more league competitions for clubs outside of MV, whose members are not charged for use of our courts, while residents need to hope and pray that they can book an open court time.
We need this $3.7 million dollar additional court at the Marguerite complex so badly that the center is closed on weekdays from noon to 4 p.m.
Dear Mission Viejo conservative council members. Please contact every voter whose property is of the same age for scheduling your city funded replacement policy. We all need to comply with your anti aging policy.That is one sure fire way to create construction jobs and keep Home Depot busy providing all the needed materials. Someone has suggested waiving of building permit fees to be more user friendly.
Mission Viejo voters. While we are not the city of Bell, we need to cancel our city council members credit cards. The voters of Bell fell asleep and did not have watchdogs monitoring their council members. We must not allow that to happen here.
Email reaction:
Agree with you Larry—who do we need to contact to voice opinions on their move??? Thanks for checking things out!!!
There is a crucial difference between a fiscal conservative and someone who opposes spending any money at all. The amenities of Mission Viejo – our parks, sports fields, lake, senior center and beautifully landscaped streets make our city the jewel that it is. While it is reasonable to discuss the appropriateness of expenditures, the thread that I get from this and similar posts is that spending any public money for anything is bad. I attended the meeting where the tennis center was approved though I do not play tennis and had no direct interest other than as a citizen and tax payer. While a few folks expressed the “do nothing, spend nothing” attitude reflected in this piece, many more expressed their support for this civic improvement – some with direct interests and many others speaking simply as interested citizens.
Please check the facts – Mission Viejo is one a a VERY small handful of cities with a AAA bond rating. Mission Viejo’s cash reserves are many times higher than the state average and many times higher than recommended safe levels. It is a well managed city. While I have not agreed with each and every expenditure made by the council, I think that naysayers have cost the City far more money with lawsuits, special elections and other similar actions that cost the City significantly and bring no public benefit. Measure D lost and lost big but these naysayers insinuate that you, the voter, just got it wrong, were duped or worse yet, were simply stupid. This insulting attitude that the naysayers are right and that everyone else is wrong is not productive.
I actually usually agree with Mr. Gilbert’s position. I enjoy the discussion and think that he provides good checks and balances on the actions of Mission Viejo’s leaders. However, the naysayers often file posts like this one which is clear in its accusation of Mayor Kelly, Councilmen Ury and Councilman Leckness, but don’t really provide a clear explanation of why this tennis center improvement is bad for Mission Viejo. I can’t tell if the concerns are that those from outside of the City use a minority of the time on the courts (in the 30 percent range), whether it is that the improvements “aren’t worth it for the City.” In any event, the majority of the council and a majority of those speaking thought this a worthy investment and I tend to agree.
Other than maintaining good streets, I would love to know where the naysayers think we should invest our hard earned tax dollars because it sounds like they are simply against everything.
Geoff. Thank you for participating in the debates of our city projects.
Do you know when I first met Joe Holtzman?
When Mission Viejo won an award for a world class “sidewalk” at the intersection of Alicia Parkway and Marguerite Parkway Joe joined the Committee for Integrity in Government expressing concerns over that CIP.
Yes, the 2001 “Lake Promenade” looks grand. It should. After losing a lawsuit with the lake association the original $750,000 project, where the Lake agreed to cap their contribution of the CIP at 50% of said cost, the sidewalk project balooned to just over $one million dollars. We can’t even pour concrete on budget nor complete the task on time as it was 14 weeks beyond the original project completion date impacting everyone driving along Alicia Parkway, a major arterial in our city.
The Murray Center was originally going to cost us $3.5 million dollars. Yet your friends on the council approved a dozen non contested “routine Consent Calendar” Change Orders that drove the final cost to over $15 million. No, we do not oppose spending city funds on CIP’s. Note: We did receive a $3 million Grant for the project.
The Mission Viejo Community Foundation was to raise over one million towards the project which never materialized even though we boot strapped them with around $400,000 in MV “stimulus” funds creating that 501C-3 non profit which is not accountable to the city.
In fact, if you bother to check the facts, I challenged the city council that we would revolt if they didn’t act on the Murray Center expansion. As the council dragged their feet I drafted a citizen Petition which Norm Rosencrantz read at a council meeting to get them to commence this long overdue project. What you are not aware of is that Norm Murray was a close friend and political mentor during my 1994 city council campaign. He almost lost his appointment to the planning commission for supporting me in that race. Susan Withrow and Sherri Buttefield both voted no to his reappointment.
I wanted to see that promised project completed before his bride Mary Murray passed. Sadly it was not to be.
If you wish to label me a naysayer for opposing our spending almost $400,000 on a Rose Parade float to celebrate our 20th anniversary I will gladly wear that badge with honor.
Geoff. Having lived here for over 30 years I can attest to the fact that we are not a destination nor did we have any new housing tracts to promote in 2008. Wasteful spending is not in my thought process.
Mr. Gilbert, if we are comparing lengths, my family moved to Southern California in the 1890’s and has remained there ever since. Not sure why you continually talk about how long you have lived in Mission Viejo as if it gives you superior knowledge about the present. I respect and appreciate the care with which you cull through proposals and you appear to have a truly extensive file of historical City documents. Those are good things but they certainly do not justify dismissive comments about those of us with whom you disagree. In addition, notwithstanding your constant reminders about blog rules to stay on point, you often change subjects rather than deal with a worthy opposing idea.
Your reply above is a classic example of these issues. The original “guest letter” post made no mention of the City’s change order approval process, no mention of your relationship with Mr. Holtzman or Mr. Murray, 1994 votes on planning commission representation or many of the other things raised in the post.
As I am sure that you are aware, the California Government Contracts Act has stringent requirements for the approval of contracts, change orders and the use of public funds generally. Overpaying for government contracts is actually prohibited by the California Constitution as a illegal “gift of public funds.” If the Lake Promenade or the Murray Center contracts were done in any way improperly or illegally, there are whistleblower provisions that allow you to challenge these improprieties and even be paid your attorney fees. If your argument instead is that the City approved “morphing” the projects mid stream to increase their scope, that would be a violation of the California Environmental Quality Act which again would provide for your recovery of attorney fees. It is my understanding that neither of those actions were taken. While it is clear that you think that too much money was spent on these projects or that they were mishandled, it is tough to tell what your argument is clearly enough for me to respond in any more detail.
Finally, the “cost mismanagement” complained of in your reply post doesn’t seem relevant to the post above to vote out Mayor Kelly and Councilmember Leckness.
.
Mr. Willis.
1. The fact that I mention how long I have lived here is because my oversight and political participation virtually predate our cityhood. Until Measure D I never saw you attend a council meeting, write a letter to the editor, be quoted by a reporter, write on a local blog, or appear at any city event. It has nothing to to do with superior knowledge. I have walked the talk in our city. You have attended and or watch our council meetings. Do you object every time a resident comes to the microphone and begins stating how long they have lived in our community?
2. You opened the door by reference to “naysayers” not willing to spend any money referring to my post.
That is what led to my references to the Lake Promenade, the Murray Center expansion and the Rose Parade. The reference to former mayor Norm Murray, who is now deceased, is personal. You call me a naysayer when I had to pressure the council to get off their duff.
3. Contract approvals. Are you joking. Did I say the change orders were illegal? Would you like to see my file on the Murray Center expansion? We have a council majority who will concede virtually anything the staff requests such as adding a new roof to the original building, when it had no flaws and was never discussed when the CIP was approved. Help me out here. How do we spell incompetance? The “mismanagement” must include a lack of oversight by the council members who fail to challenge Change Orders in the millions of dollars that appear as “routine” in which they vote as a block unless pulled for discusssion. Change orders of that magnitude deserved more scrutiny by those calling the shots
4. Did I miss something? Didn’t Trish vote to approve a budget for the tennis center for $3.6 or $3.7 million dollars? Dave was not in office at the time.
In re-reading the guest article the author covers multiple issues all related to city expenditures.
my addition was to include part of the tennis complex high ticket items.
The author apparently is frustrated with the city Newsletter and the Register providing one sided puff pieces without the opportunity for rebuttal. That is what we offer to everyone regardless of where you may live. This blog is read by people around the country, not just Orange County.
Patti Bennett said her biggest request is to provide one additional court that will double our league capacity. However, we have bigger plans that are driving up the cost.
Perhaps the author will respond to your comments. Several of my posts are Press Releases. The point being that while we do receive comments on those posts we do not hear from the authors or their staff.
Geoff.
Let me help you out here. At the July 2nd 2007 council meeting Trish and the other council members adopted the 2007-09 Budget that included the tennis complex funding even as Irwin Bornstein reported that the discretionary reserves of our General Fund will decline from 66% to 52% based on last minute staff adjustments.
Email from northern CA.
“Are you kidding me?!! $3.7 for an additional court?! I need to come down and get some of the seeds from the money trees that Mission Viejo is growing there!”
Lots to write about here. Wouldn’t it be nice to have a senior center that looked just a little like a public facility? I was shocked to see the sheherizaade (sp?) look out back at the center. Who needs all those drapes and expensive cushions? Before the center was expanded there was no need for a 24/7 guard. Now someone has to mind the pork out there. The cushions arer outside come rain or shine. That takes a whole lot of money for replacements. I for one cover my furniture in the winter and take in everything that can degrade in weather. Who among us would ever be so wasteful with their own money?
Move on with the measure D thing, the money is gone… period. As is the $600,000 the city gave the Audi dealership, the $2.2million that we gave the infinite dealer, the $600,000 for the lexus dealer, and the $300,000 for the Saab dealer which is no longer there. Their arguments were specious at best. The Jaguar dealer came to our city and we did not pay him. The Acura dealer came and expanded and we did not pay him. Check out their 460’s in this election, you will see not only these car dealers, but the assn of all car dealers. Didn’t they contribute for your NO on D????
I have no problem with enhancements on the tennis center. But I do have a problem with razing a 40 year old building and building new just because some people think we are loaded.
How many people in this city have 40 year old homes? Ask yourself, if I wanted to improve MY home would I demolish it and start over just because it is old? Spoiled, spoiled.
The 4000 truckloads of dirt are a complete excess and the city never does a COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS. of any of these pork projects.
The city has been known to do surveys, better known as PUSH POLLS. They can get the numbers to say what they need them to say.
Oh, and the ‘bond rating’. didn’t most of the big corporations who were on the front lines of the stock market meltdown have great ratings?
Start thinking and knowing the facts instead of trying to find reasons to ignore becoming another ‘Bell’.
Take a look at the bonded indebtedness that the city has. The city hall alone takes $1mil/yr to pay the bonds before the lights are ever turned on.
We owe millions on the library, and nearly $60million on the parking structures at the mall. Those bonds must be paid before any of the pass through obligations are met or the utilities are paid (and cops, parks, animal shelter, etc.)
If you are watching the global meltdown of the economy (which I doubt you are), you must be in a fantasy bubble thinking that Mission Viejo is exempt from the ills of the country and state.
They also don’t publicize the long term debt we are carrying for the retirees, and the healthcare obligations for the employees we currently have.
Pardon me if I handled my money decisions as I would want our government to handle them for me. The state, and feds are excellent examples of ” I can’t be broke, I still have checks”.
Well said Madam Mayor!
For a short timer Geoff Willis has a lot to say–most of it wrong. I sure do wish that Mr Willis did some homework before he comments on Mission Viejo !!!
Let’s start with Mr Willis comments about the beautiful landscaping in the city.
Maybe Mr Willis should take a drive down Alicia from Margaruite to the I-5 and look hard at the slopes along Alicia. Those are all city owned—and in deplorable condition. The next rip Mr Willis should take is along Jeranimo from Alicia to its termination at Olympiad–those slopes are in sad shape also–most of them city owned. Then Mr Willis should take a trip down Margaruite Parkway from Trabuco to the city limits near Avery. Mr Willis should look east in this case–those are city owned slopes–also in deplorable condition.
It was NOT until a number of citizens started a constant drum beat about the poor condition of slopes on Margaruite Parkway that the city even started a program of rehabilitation. I might also point out to Mr Willis that the outstanding landscaping in Mission Viejo when identified is typically belonging to one of the HOA’s in the city.
This year over two hundred pictures of deplorable street conditions were sent to the city manager of Mission Viejo by activist–Mr Willis was NOT one of those activists. It was also presented at a city council meeting by Larry Gilbert that the city’s initial five year cycle of street maintenance had been stretched out to a 7 year cycle. The 7 year cycle obviously does not keep our streets in acceptable condition. Why did the 7 year cycle happen–because the city was spending money frivolously on things like moving boulders and rocks in Lower Curtis Park, to keep a contractor busy, and giving no bid design work to another contractor. At the same time another special interest group had their hands in the cities pockets for an outsizes animal shelter.
I would remind Mr Willis that everyone in Mission Viejo has a street they live on. The vast majority do not have tennis rackets ! So what should the priority be Mr Willis ???
In addition–the triple A bond rating has been sustained because the activist do expose the games that the politicians play with the citizens money–thank you Larry Gilbert. This included throwing a net over the giveaway to a local car dealer by Trish Kelley, and Lance MacLean.
I think Mr. Willis has a point in his discussion of the money being spent on the Tennis Center, but here is where the problem lies, actually it is more like a disconnect. You will have to excuse me, I am at work, so these numbers are not exact. (I am just using this for a bigger illustration) It is my understanding the Tennis Center had something like 4 options, One was to add a court for something like 400K The second was to add a court and some lights for 800K Third was to do both and remodel the Center for 1 Mil plus and fourth was the 3.7 Million dollar complete “redo”. Please Note, this is how it was explained to me by the assistant City Manager, but the specific numbers are not the point, I’m trying to look at the big picture.
This is the problem, my guess is you would get much less resistance on tennis projects 1,2 or even 3. I think that Kelly and Ury have shown they prefer to go with the “Grand Plan” rather than doing “enough”. It is no wonder why the “watchdogs” oppose all other spending, because there seems to be no end to the number of projects, or to their cost! It is my opinion (and platform) that you will have far less resistance to projects for the parks, or Ball field shades for 100K to 200K if we spent 3 Million Dollars less on the Tennis Center, used that money to repair our streets. And I think it would also help if we spent 400k Less on a float, or didn’t double pay for council members, or Lifetime medical…. And so on
The bottom line is, we all live in Mission Viejo because it is a great place to live and raise a family! We are all neighbors and have to deal with each other on a day to day basis. I grew up here, and have lived here almost my entire life, I love the parks, ball fields and the quality of life we have. There is no reason we can’t work together and “Have it all” here in the California Promise.
Mr. Dobrilovic’s comments are well reasoned and well taken. I too understand that government should act like we all do in our personal lives and only spend what is reasonable (which should be self-defining as no more than it has), on things promoting the “general welfare.” We can all disagree on just what is in the “general welfare” but it is a discussion that is needed. I also have consistently stated that when the life time benefits were put into place during or before Ms. Reavis’ tenure (I never get a clear answer on that one), was not a reasonable use of City money. Given the economic times, I raised my eyebrow over the Rose Bowl float and would not have supported that. However, if you look at the hundreds of votes taken during Mayor Kelly’s tenure, I agree with virtually all of the rest. In contrast, in the short time Ms. Schlicht has been in office, I have disagreed with her votes many times, found her to be rude and dismissive to the public, I have founnd her logic and reasoning unintelligible and find that she takes an “entourage” of the naysayers with her everywhere she goes to tell her what to say.
The one area of agreement between Mr. Holtzman and myself is that streets should be the TOP priority of the City. I have heard mixed things about whether the 5 and 7 year repair models is an apples and oranges comparison, but I am going to keep digging. If we need to reallocate resources anywhere, that is where it should be. Mr. Holtzman and Ms. Reavis may not know this, but I have to use the streets of Mission Viejo everyday to take my kids to school and then to drive to A REAL JOB. This makes me use those streets at a time when they are most impacted and gives me a real appreciation for the issue of street maintenance. I will say that from what I have read from the response from the City Public Works and it sounds like the “hundreds of photos” of the streets needing slight repairs were put out for political purposes rather than being given to the City in the form of a request for repairs.
As you may know, NIMBYs (Not In My Backyard) have resisted progress selfishly for many years. Within the past two decades BANAnas (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere) and CAVEs (Citizens Against Virtually Everything) have emerged, generally in the form of liberal environmentalists. In Mission Vijeo, they often describe themselves as “conservative” wheny they are actually advocating liberal philosophies. The common feature of these groups is that they think that since “they have theirs” everything else should freeze in place as if time will not evenutally eat away the best of cities where there is not investment for the public good. CAVEs and BANAnas are alive and well in Mission Viejo and in one instance, Cathy Schlicht, sitting on the City Council. I would like to see the citizenry of Mission Viejo keep other CAVEs and BANAnas out of office.
No— Mr. Willis the street repair requests were all of a significant nature.
Pictures were posted in most cases on the Dispatch. Yes–the reply from the city manager was curt at best.
The pictures and requests were not for political purposes either. The thing that got me looking harder was that I twisted my ankle on Bandee. Yes; in a crevasse worthy of being on the Mendenhall Glacier in Alaska.
The priority in Mission Viejo should be safety, streets, and slopes. These three items most impact the quality of life in the city and two of the three have been ignored for far too long !!
Lifetime bene’s. I have said this before, but just to remind Mr. Willis, one of the first city councils including Butterfield, Withrow and Craycraft voted for the benefits. They made it 12 years because we had term limits of 12 years. Ledesma voted for it, but it was clear that he could never receive it because of his age.
To date, Craycraft is the only past council member who has opted to take the free lifetime medical. When it was proposed to terminate the benefit in 2004, I VOTED TO TERMINATE IT. I was absent when they brought it back, and Lance, Trish and Ury voted to reinstate it. Ledesma voted NO.
You said you agreed with Kelley’s other votes? That means you agree with giving the Audi dealership $600,000 gift of taxpayers funds?
Next, Cathy is one of the few people (activists) who consistently came to most city functions ALONE way before she ran for council. You must mean Trish when you talk about entourage. She used to have a personal photographer (adoring reisdent) follow her everywhere and snap photos for her album. He must have tired of her, haven’t seen him in a while.
Mr. Willis continues to denigrate activists with acronyms and dispersions. Keep it up. Trish used to be one!!!! She fought against the apartments that went in near HER house near the Kaleidoscope. She fought against the Home Depot. She is such a NIMBY that she used to say when we were trying to solve the affordable lawsuit issue, that ‘she did not one unit built on her side of town if it meant one more student in HER school.
Maybe there is a little NIMBY in each of us. I will admit to fighting the airport and that was the biggest NIMBY of all in the county.