In the initial June 12th “Firegate in Mission Viejo” report I mentioned the “stealth” expenditure of taxpayer funds that were never part of an authorized CIP. In that report I glossed over our May 22nd Agreement with OCFA where the city (of Mission Viejo) would then pay the monthly landscape maintenance costs (about $8,000 annually).”
To bring this Agreement up to date I addressed this issue at our June 16th city council meeting to which, as expected, there was no response from council or staff.
Note: Prior to my presentation I did speak to the Battalion Chief who had called me over the weekend to discuss my initial report. I did give him a heads up on my Public Comments and will keep his comments off line.
In Dir of Public Works Keith Rattay’s June 9th letter to City Manager Dennis Wilberg it states “it appeared to make sense that the City could help to maintain only the front of the station that faces the street” to improve the overall aesthetics of this critical facility in our civic core area.”
Keith closes with the following sentence. “Finally, no Council Member was involved in providing direction to staff on this issue.”
This agreement triggers three concerns. Setting president countywide by the City maintaining County property, second, the whole issue of the aloof and snobbish text of “overall aesthetics” and lastly the city maintaining selected “private areas” of the city.
Prior to the council meeting a local citizen drove us to Fire Station 24.
Item #2 of the May 22, 2008 Maintenance Agreement reads as follows:
“OCFA is the owner of certain real property situated in the City of Mission Viejo, County of Orange, California, hereafter referred to as “Property,” and more particularly described as follows: Orange County Fire Station 24, 25862 Marguerite Parkway, Mission Viejo, California 92692.”
Folks. Mission Viejo is an “equal opportunity” Contract City. For all those who are gardeners seeking a lucrative Contract you missed the boat. in my Public Comments I stated that the fire station area is the size of a postage stamp. The right side of the building is partially maintained by the strip mall that is adjacent to that location.
My guess is that the frontage is between 100 and 200 feet. If you deduct the driveway for the two fire vehicles you have virtually no grass or shrubs to maintain.
Update: I visited the Fire Station this early morning to take measurements and photos just to be fair in my reporting. The “Exhibit A” sketch of the Contract Agreement is useless in that I cannot see any exact dimensions of the County owned property to be maintained. One of the firemen pointed out that on the north end there is a rustic section up a slope that the city appears to be clearing. I did climb up the slope to take some photos. However, I go back to Keith’s report as stated above. The landscape maintenance focus was on the “front of the station” not up the hill that is not being used.
I measured the grass strip to the left of the drive which is around 58 feet by 11 feet. At the opposite side of the drive is a lawn area that measures about 20 feet wide that goes up the driveway to the strip mall. Yes, there are a number of newly planted shrubs that would require occasional care.
Folks we are talking about $650 per month yet not a member of the council questioned staff. You can see and hear this presentation on the city’s streaming media as I asked that the maintenance of this little patch of land be “explained and justified” which fell on deaf ears.
City Council members have been trained not to engage the public, especially during Public Comments unless it’s favorable for them. Give speakers three minutes than tell them times up. And to think that we shortly will be giving our City Manager his annual review. Do we have a fox guarding the hen house?
Please take a field trip and visit Fire Station #24 in Mission Viejo to see for yourself. I am not recommending that you wait for the typical Open House where you tour the inside and equipment with fire fighters. My suggestion is to do a “drive by” which speaks volumes. Drop off your business card at city hall that is just up the street and ask to participate in next year’s Maintenance Contract Award.
FYI. Copies of this Juice post is being sent directly to the city, city attorney, and the mayor so they cannot say they were not appraised of this report.
Folks. I could easily find a dozen gardeners who would gladly maintain the “front of the (Fire) Station” for under $100 per month. Something is very fishy in Mission Viejo and it’s not the abandoned Fish Market on the Lake.
Larry,
Mission Viejo is not alone in working with JPA’s and sharing some expenses when it benefits the community. Most fire stations and libraries in the OC are no longer City owned (MV is an exception). Modest maintenance and landscape improvements are quite common. Not being familiar with this item, is something outrageous being proposed? A statue, fountain, massive landscaping? Anything of this nature would be quite inappropriate and keep after them if council is trying to do this.
As you should be aware, the Staff and Council cannot, and should not take any direct action at the meeting were you made your public comments. Staff can commit to look into the matter, clarify the matter, refer the matter. They cannot take any action or enter into a discussion, that is illegal.
Larry:
I also checked out the site today.
I am an experienced landscaper and by my estimates this job would require 12 minutes a week to maintain –or about 48 minutes a month. I called our Landscape estimator about bidding for the job.
She did some qui8ck calculations and said bid on the job –like now. By her calculations that comes out to $888.88 per hour.
Our firm pays the boys we pick up on Los Alisos $4.27 and hours. So I think we should turn a tidy profit. Does Mr. Rattay have any more deals like that available?????????We want to bid on them also.
Herb Glotz Landscaping
just…asking?
I am very familiar with procedures at city council meetings. Yes, as Public Comments are not agendized items the council cannot take action unless there is an emergency such as our Ferrocarril landslide. However, when others have posed questions our mayors have asked a member of staff to look into said concerns or allegations.
This past year they blew off transparency by stopping us from pulling items off the “routine” Consent Calendar for discussion unless we contact them in advance and request those items be pulled. I have been told that I better address those items under Public Comment in that the item may not be pulled by a council member for discussion. Clever. As such we cannot request a staff report based on the Public Comment monologue, rather than dialogue.
Furthermore you miss the point. We already have the City maintaining HOA slope landscape near Lake Mission Viejo. If I lived in another part of the city I would question this inconsistent policy. And lastly, there are residents who believe the hardscape work exceeded the managers authorization.
How much did the walls and stone work cost ? And who paid for the wall and stone work ? Isn’t Paker the main concrete and hardscape contractor for the city ? Who paid for the design and plans ? If the OCFA paid for any of the work why was there city trucks and city staff supervising all of the work going on ? (Jerry Pill and Brian Haun )I think. Where is the cost for all of the city staffs time ? At no time did I see any OCFA staff with the contractors ? I drive past the station two times a day. Was a building permit pulled for the electrical inspection ? What was the cost for the permit or for the contract building inspector? What about those giant pots ? Maybe they were donated. I thought the boy scouts did all the planting, I know I saw one of the contractors doing some planting before 7:00am ? Seems there are so many more questions that answers. Could this project be say $70,000.00 or $80,000.00 ? Who knew !
MV Resident.
While I can’t respond to your question about Permits today I previously posted the REPORTED project cost at around $35,000. Looking at the three major invoices I do not see the huge pots being listed. I might make a Public Records request to see if permits were in fact issued.
It’s not simply about a “stealth” project. It’s really an ongoing issue of the city managers staff cutting corners while the city council publicly is silent that is troubling. What about 13 Change Orders to add an extension on the community center resulting in a tripling of the original CIP as discussed with the public. The expression “bait-n-switch” comes to mind. Change Orders fall under the “routine consent calendar” and basically have already been agreed to before the majority vote of approval. It’s like saying we forgot to quote the roof. Do you want to see the stars at night or shall we complete the project. Another trick is to design with “future” expansion options in mind be it FloJo park or the Murray Center. Show the public the raw cost than add all the frills once the council OK’s the initial project.
“Just askin.”
Sorry that I didn’t acknowledge your former city council service earlier.
Based on “MV Resident’s” question I will be submitting a Public Record request to get the total outlay including both hard and soft scape costs of this “stealth project.”
I find it strange that you say that JPA’s are common yet this joint project was never discussed with the public nor the city council. How do you explain that minor factoid?