Mission Viejo’s Capitol Improvement Project #501 calls for the addition of one tennis court at the Marguerite Tennis Center which currently has seven courts.
After receiving multiple calls from taxpayers expressing concerns of the semi-private nature of this tennis center I have contacted senior staff and recreation department employees to get a better understanding of this proposed expansion.
A document from the city dated Feb 4th covers recreation usage for the past quarter. It reports a maximum “tennis only” user base of 249 of which 40 percent are non-residents. As such the raw number of Mission Viejo users is 150.
We need to use caution in that there may be others who purchase “combined memberships” that enable them to use these same tennis courts. The city acknowledges that this report does not include that specific data point.
As the complaints related to both projected cost and league usage I will focus on the later issue as it is more troubling.
The tennis leagues have between 21 to 25 teams. Each team must contain a minimum of 12 players of which eight participate in matches played against eight players from another team such as one from Mission Viejo.
There is a league requirement of providing four courts for the teams to compete. If we add an eighth court as planned there may be times when no individual card carrying citizen will have access as league teams could take all eight courts for tournaments.
I was able to confirm that these “other” teams do NOT pay for usage of our courts. Their members pay dues to join their non Mission Viejo teams but that money does not come to Mission Viejo.
While I was told that our team does not pay when competing outside of Mission Viejo that is not the concern of our taxpaying residents.
Case in point. The United States Tennis Association, USTA, is taking up four of our seven existing Marguerite tennis courts, for at least two hours, this Saturday beginning at 2 p.m. They will also take three courts for two hours on Sunday.
As to the project. Although the June 22, 2009 staff report breaks down the project into four phases, the plan is to do them all concurrently. Based on that approach the projected cost will be $3,960,883. With the city history of cost overruns should this proceed as planned we will probably exceed $5 million dollars for Lance’s parting pet project request. Lance was a big supporter of a Mission Viejo basketball gymnasium. Although Phase 4 will not include a gymnasium it will include two basketball courts.
To summarize. How nice. We are about to spend $4 million for 150 Mission Viejo tennis players.
As we discuss supply and demand, our Felipe Tennis center is closed weekdays from noon to 3 p.m. while the more popular Marguerite Complex is closed weekdays from noon to 4 p.m.
Two thirty p.m. update: The original post neglected to mention that while we have 150 Mission Viejo tennis facility users, 40% of them use the Felipe Center with less than 100, 60% of them, using the Marguerite Tennis center. This sprucing up of this complex is for the out of town “club teams” who will not contribute one dime to the $4 million project cost.
Staff justifies this CIP by saying we need to add new Musco court lighting. They also point out that the clubhouse is 40 years old.
Council Member Schlicht has filed an Appeal of the PDP building permit due to lack of an EIR. Among her concerns is the need to import 4,000 truck loads of dirt. That Appeal is scheduled to be heard by the Council on April 19th.
Given the state of the economy (terrible) and its direction (going to get worse), why is this non-essential project being discussed at this time? And from a taxpayers’ perspective, why would it be considered at all?
If the facility isn’t open to the public (e.g., like a library, without charge for basic use), why are taxpayers paying for improvements?
If a private tennis club has taken over a public facility, improvements for the benefit of the club should come from membership dues. If the members can’t afford all the upgrades, the improvements should be limited to what they can afford. Otherwise, they can raise dues or charge more for out-of-town use — find a way to cover improvements or do without them.
How about all those youth “club” soccer teams that use our fields and although they might pay to use them do the teams from other cities that come to play these teams pay our city??? NOOOOOOO. What makes this city great is that we can all use these facilities if we so choose. I don’t play soccer, but if I wanted to, there are fields I can use (although most are in use most of the time). The Marguerite clubhouse is falling apart and needs to be remodeled or redone. The courts are not in the best shape with little potholes in them. We upgraded Sierra and not everyone in our city swims or works out! These things are a draw to people who might be considering moving into Mission Viejo.
Why are you so against improvements in our city. People live here BECAUSE of all the wonderful things it offers. As you are aware, all the other recreation facilities in Misison Viejo (which require a separate membership) have been remodeled. I don’t use any of those, but I’m happy that those that do have a nice facility. I no longer have children using soccer fields, parks, or baseball fields, but I’m sure glad the city is taking care of them. Just because I don’t drive every street in Mission Viejo – I am sure glad the city maintains them and is keeping up the landscape ….and I am pretty sure people from other cities are driving on those streets and benefitting from the beautiful landscape. You have made it clear that you don’t think it is right for people from other cities to use the tennis facility for free (which they graciously host our teams in their cities – for free), what about Little League Baseball and AYSO soccer – goodness, all those teams bringing people from other cities, using our fields!!! This tennis item has been beat to death – we have the money – people need to be employed — why not do it now.
Sam.
While I understand your “entitlement” approach, we just left the Marguerite Tennis center as the manager was closing it to attend a city meeting.
In the post I overlooked including the mix between Felipe and Marguerite’s tennis centers usage.
Using a SWAG estimate from the tennis center manager 40% of the 150 MV residents play at Felipe while 60% of the 150 play at the Marguerite Tennis center.
Therefore less than 100 Mission Viejo taxpayers generally play at the Marguerite complex for which you want us to spend $4 million dollars.
What we have here is a request to spend taxpayer money to spruce up a tennis complex for the use of outside club teams who pay zippo, nada, to our city.
In fact, you might be one of those free loading members.
Sam, I think you hit on the problem. If you want to go to the park and play soccer, you can. If you want to go to Curtis Park and Use the Batting cages, or play ball with your friends, you can. If you want to play tennis at the tennis center, YOU CANT! THere is the problem. It is a long streach from “everybody” using them, and 150 People using them.
The Clubhouse and tennis courts are basically private clubs, and the question is how much should the city pay for this. Nobody is opposed to ANY parks or recreation, the question is how is the population best served. $4 Million dollars for the tennis center or Repairing the streets that we all drive on and live on everyday. I have 2 inch Cracks with Plants growing in them on My street, this will get worse and worse, it will not fix itself, and will cost more to repair the longer it is unattended.
That is the question
email from 30 year Mission Viejo taxpayer:
Very nice, Larry. I just wish more Mission Viejo folks knew what was about to happen to their money ($4 million) , instead of it being spent on fixing their streets and landscaped slopes. Can you get this published in the Saddleback Valley News?
Folks. As part of the time I spend researching MV issues I will meet with residents who are not part of our regular breakfast group. You do need to step out of the box while seeking facts and figures for new policy topics.
This response from someone knowledgable on our city is but one illustration:
Larry,
Great to see you yesterday. Thanks for your outstanding efforts…especially on this project boondoggle. The below is well done. And, the cost per member is worse than our earlier figure of $10,000 per member. Bottom line, we are subsidizing a private club.
Right now, anybody can use the court by paying a daily fee. May be the fee structure can be improved to encourage more non-pass holder usage. One such improvement would be to allow non-pass holders to reserve a court. Fee structure per se? Could be a per court, per hour fee etc.
MV is not unique to run a public tennis facility, with relative success even compared to the privately owned ones. I hope the city is unique though, as a forward looking one. Why are we not looking at improvements that can be made to address any valid concern? Rather than adopting the attitude of this and that won’t work, wasteful, etc. etc. etc. Let’s scrap the whole thing. Let’s scrap the library too…it never charges any fee (except, well, late fees of course), free for all, provides free A/C and heat, has a marvelous building, sitting on expensive land. Let’s sell it and put the money back into the tax payer’s hands, or put it into the city account so it can be put to “better” use. How about the senior center? How many “citizens” use it? Let’s vote again!
The huge cost got my attention — how did the cost reach $4 million? What’s with 4,000 truckloads of dirt? Sounds like they are building a pyramid.
The first question is whether or not the city can afford this, and I think it can’t. Cities all around are seriously cutting back. The people making the decisions (city hall) are oblivious to the economy.
Debra.
We are not against improvements in our city. In fact some of our watchdogs exposed the deteriorating conditions of our streets and slopes while our staff spent millions on rebuilding our other recreation facilities.
This is a unique situation.
We give preference to league play which limits resident access. As I just pointed out four of the Marguerite tennis courts will be used by the USTA on Sat while none of the non resident players will pay a dime towards the maintenance nor proposed expansion.
Our parks are open for anyone. You can use all of the Montanoso and Sierra facilites by simply becoming a regular member of purchase of a daily pass.
As to keeping up the landscape you can thank Joe Holtzman for pointing out the need for revitalization of our city slopes.
So we go from 7 to 8 courts which now enables clubs to take over the entire complex
This project will not jepordize the financial health of our City. It is a sound spending of captial.
As with all of our recreation centers membership is available to all taxpaying residents. We have the choice. I could give you a “laundry list” of facilites in Mission Viejo that I personally don’t use.Some of the renovations costs of other facilities far exceeded what is required to renovate the tennis center. This “narrow-minded, what’s in it for me attitude” would be the demise of this city. Thankfully, your voice is not that of the majority, otherwise, this wouldn’t be the beautiful community that most of us are proud to be a part of.
The tennis people insist that others pay for their recreation, and they launch personal attacks against those who disagree with them. There is nothing sound about this expenditure. It takes two groups to keep the project afloat: city staff with a pretense the city is swimming in cash and the 150 residents who claim they are entitled.
I don’t need to go to “their” tennis club and pay a fee. There are plenty of courts in the area where anyone can walk on at any time for free. Tennis is no longer the hot sport (the 1970s are over), and courts are idle.
If the city were to take care of real needs (streets and slopes), there would be no question about projects like the tennis club because there would be NO MONEY for it.
And talk about a “small group that won’t spend money,” how about the city hall group that has refused to maintain infrastructure for the sake of getting an AAA rating?
Hey MV Resident, How proud of our streets are you??? Lets 150 or so people use the center….. EVERY BODY LIVES ON ONE street or another….Hmmm
Sorry this will be long, but informative.
I am one of the captains of a USTA team that will be “taking up to four courts” at the Marguerite tennis center this week end. I am also a City Resident and “Pass holder” of the recreation and tennis facilities. My match is Sunday at 11 AM and a junior league is taking the 2 PM time spot on Saturday as Larry says they are. What he is not saying is that after 11:00 AM on a Saturday or a Sunday most of the tennis to be played that day is already done. The City allows USTA teams to reserve courts only during non peak hours for the USTA leagues. My team is composed of all residents with one exception and that woman has to pay the $8.00 daily use fee to play on our team at home matches. When we travel to other matches no members of our team are charged on their courts either.
Once again Larry Gilbert is fast and loose with the facts as are some of the other postings. Let us be clear THE TENNIS AND RECREATION FACILITIES ARE PUBLIC not semi private as he alleges. You may use them on a pay as you go basis or if you use the facilities a lot you can join what is being a called a “membership” which makes it less costly if you go there often enough to justify it and here is how it works. You can pay $8.00 to play tennis in the morning; you can only book 1 ½ hours of court time but if no one is waiting to play you can stay longer. You are given a receipt for your $8.00 if you ask for it and then later in the day you can show that receipt and use the workout/ recreation facilities at Sierra or Montanoso and even come back later and swim if you want to. Where else can you get all day entertainment for $8.00!! Follow this link to see what the City offers for recreation and the accompanying costs. http://cityofmissionviejo.org/Workarea/showcontent.aspx?id=4358
Larry say’s there are only 249 “tennis only” user base and about 100 are non residents. What he is not telling you is that if you are not a resident you pay the $8.00 daily use fee. And if a member of “Tennis only” you are really missing the boat. A couple joining tennis only pays $660 a year but for another $198 that couple can play tennis, swim and use the exercise equipment also. There are as of the end of February 398 combination memberships (meaning tennis and recreation) and 5782 recreation only memberships. I think if more of the recreation only members new what a deal total membership was there would be a lot more combined with swimming and tennis.
Larry say’s there are 21 to 25 teams with a minimum requirement of 12 team members taking up 4 courts. He got that information from a staff member but because he does not play tennis he has mixed up the facts. If you count all of the leagues played on every day of the week there are indeed 25 teams of 2 players who play another team of two players. But he has combined these facts and mixed it with the explanation below.
On the week ends there are 3 USTA mixed doubles leagues teams with Mission Viejo as the home team (Not two person teams). There is a LIMIT of 18 team members not a Minimum of 12 as he states. Twelve individuals can play doubles on a given day taking up only 3 courts. On Tuesday and Wednesdays evenings there are Non USTA leagues comprised of pass holders and guests alike. Daytime there are a couple of women’s leagues and a men’s league also but I don’t recall which days as I am an evening and week end player. Of the few opportunities I have had play daytime during the week there is almost always a court available.
This project very much needs to be done. The club house and courts were built 30 something years ago and are in need of repair. There are divots in the courts that cause a hazard to players as well a many places where the top coat is peeling off of the court. The lights are old, inefficient and always burning out bulbs. It was even discovered a number of years ago that when built by the Mission Viejo Company the wiring was just buried under the ground in nothing but it’s own insulation, something that is totally unacceptable.
This project was approved in concept by the City back in 2001 or 2002 with a whole different City council and here the same anti spend money on anything group is still doing everything in their power to stop it including conducting a recall election that the City and us paid $270,000 on. You do know that was the real reason for the recall don’t you!
Half the structures in MV are at least that old, and we cannot tear everything down on the prospect taxpayers will pay to rebuild it. I have yet to hear anyone explain $4 million for this project (no matter who uses it or where they live).
Why does the project call for 20 additional parking spaces when the city will open street parking whenever it is requested? Can these tennis players not walk? Why does the project call for two outdoor basketball courts when there are outdoor courts all over town? Did anyone establish the need for this?
Kime.
You are correct. Although I have played tennis in the past I do not play tennis at any Mission Viejo center.
My facts and figures were provided either by city documents or my discussion with Director Kelly Doyle, Steve Bell and Bryan Gruner who runs the centers.
I did not dream up any of the data furnished in this report.
Do invited team members pay to play? I am told no.
Perhaps you can justify spending $4 million dollars for this project but many MV taxpayers object.
Think about your following comment as you try to denegrade my facts.
“There is a LIMIT of 18 team members not a Minimum of 12 as he states.”
For starters those were Bryan’s numbers. You know, Bryan, the man who runs the center. PS: Both Kelly and Steve told me Bryan has all the answers to my questions.
More importantly we can both be correct. The minimum is 12 and the maximum is 18. What’s your point?
As a first time contributor to this blog let me go over some ground rules. In addition to no personal attacks or swearing, you are to focus on the story and not any other topic. The recall election is over. More imortantly it is not the topic for our many readers trying to understand this CIP.
Bryan told me that USTA will be using four courts tomorrow and three on Sunday. Is he mistaken?
Nice try at shooting the messenger. Larry Gilbert is not “fast and loose with the facts.”
If the facts are incorrect than someone in the city has lied to me and the Community Services Commmission based on user and attendance data which I have in my files.
And lastly Joe Holtzman and I met with Bryan to tour the Marguerite center. This story was fully vetted.
Like other projects in the city we began with adding one court and now have created a monster along with a $4 million dollar tab.
Larry,
I don’t know how many courts will be taken by the juniors on Saturday as this will be the first time they play and I said you were probably right concerning Saturday. Being that they play mid day they will not be depriving pass holders or guests in most instances. I spoke to Brian Gruner today about that very item and this group of juniors pays to use the center. I guess they are not an actual league but a group renting the facility, ask Brian for more on that.
This season there are 3 adult mixed doubles teams that play on weekends but that is not a set number of teams. This is the first time I volunteered to captain a team but I believe 3 is the largest number of USTA league teams we have ever had playing out of Mission Viejo on weeks ends. I have been playing there since 2000 and have only had to give up my court to a league on 2 occasions in 10 years. Invited players from the USTA teams we play do not pay when they play us at home and we don’t pay when we go to their place either. But I have a team member who is not a pass holder and she does have to pay to play home games just like any other non pass holder.
Brian Gruner said he would have liked to give you a more in depth discussion of how the leagues functioned but you didn’t have time so he was not able to do so. As a player and citizen I would be glad to explain it to you in more detail if you care to. you can get my number from Brian.
The fast and loose referred to the 4 Million that keeps getting thrown around while not explaining who or what it is for. It was actually initially thought to be 3.7 Million but was greatly reduced due to the current economic environment. The bid for the tennis portion which includes demolition and building new club house, resurfacing the existing courts, building 2 new courts as the old court number 1 will ultimately become part of the “One Gate Entrance” to both Swimming and tennis. It also includes new fencing, stadium seating, new energy efficient lighting and destroying the existing front parking and replacing it with landscape and hardscape. Apparently this needs to be done so the new building will be ADA compliant as the existing ramps are to steep. The total revised cost for the tennis portion was between 2.4 and 2.7 Million (I can’t find the exact figure right now). The total of the original 3.7 Million included the totally re-done rear parking and basket ball court.
A chance meeting of some of the tennis players and some home owners occurred after the project was first shown to the public at a council meeting early last spring. We had several meetings and all agreed we wanted to change the parking design to minimize the impact the surrounding homes. That was presented to the city and the designer modified the plan to the homeowner’s satisfaction. Even Cathy Schlicht was for it at the time, why that has changed I don’t know.
Much more to talk about but this is too long already, looking forward to hearing from you.
Kime.
Thank you for acknowledging how City staff expands projects. The tennis court was to cost around $2 million. The other goodies tack on the remainder. In writing this report I took the exact figures from the four phases of the CIP as appearing in a city Agenda report.
As to spending more time with Bryan I had already made two other calls to Kelly and Steve and had a luncheon meeting to attend. Perhaps we can meet and discuss this further.
I walked the tennis center and looked at the courts surface. Quite honestly I wish the streets in my city looked that good. One thought would be to sell the courts for $1.00 to the tennis club–then they could handle what they want done.
Improve the tennis courts!! The rec. centers provide a healthy environment and positive way for my two teens to spend time.
I also use them when not working…Part of the reason I moved to this great city!
Larry, you are combining unlike items. You are mixing a very early very preliminary estimate and I don’t remember what the cost was supposed to be to add one court years ago. The prior design concepts of where that single court could be located on the site was revised many times and shown over and over at the council meetings. That single court idea has been dead for a long time.
I am not sure where you come up with the idea that the city expands projects from what I just wrote about. While I don’t know if I could pick you out of a crowd I think you were at the same several council meetings that I was where the architect laid it out in more detail than I could what was to be included.
For the other person who thinks the courts are better than his streets, they are supposed to be. We have people of all skill levels playing tennis, some run faster and stop quicker than others and a level consistent surface is needed for that reason.
Have read a couple comments about poor street conditions in Mission Viejo which has caused me to pay more attention to the roads when I drive around and I am not seeing what those complaints are about. Then again those people complaining are not paying a daily use fee or hundreds of dollars a year extra for a smooth surface.
Kime.
Let’s work backwards from your latest input. We are paying for the roads in Mission Viejo. Did you vote for Measure M or the 30 year extension of same? Please stay on point if you wish to continue the debate.
The city has a track record of expanding projects AFTER initial public discussion and approval. In some cases they do it with bait and switch tactics such as Montanoso where they completed the original CIP and now wish to add lockers. We added a new roof on the original Murray Center when it was never part of the expansion discussion.
Larry, stop violating the Juice blog rules. Stay on the Marguerite Tennis complex. Sorry.
When the request for an additional court was presented to the council I don’t recall any discussions of adding basketball courts. That is a perfect example of giving staff a credit card that they personally are not liable for.
This Me First project does not improve the city — that’s ridiculous. I agree with comments above, tennis is a bygone activity and sell the tennis club to its members for $1.
I attended several council meetings through the spring and summer of 2009. Every time the basket ball courts were brought up we had an alliance of sorts. Tennis players, home owners and Costa Del Sol residents were unanimously against it. My last council meeting concerning that issue was in September 2009 and at that time the council after hearing everyone’s objection made a motion and it was passed 4/1 to go forward with the project with out the courts. It was only during the planning commission meeting in February that basket ball re appeared, so something obviously happened between those time periods.
I was initially against them because they can be very noisy with a lot of yelling, disturbing buth tennis and the neighbors. After speaking to Kelly Doyle it was pointed out that the basket ball players had to reserve court time and be monitored by who ever is on duty at the tennis center. Now that I have a better understanding of how they plan to run them I don’t have an objection.
Larry,
Leave the city council alone, they are ordinary folks trying to improve their community, and they do a terrific job compared to the state legislature and U.S. senate, don’t you think ?
Common sense.
We all strive to improve our community. As to SAC and DC that’s not a fair comparison
And for better or worse I helped every one of them get elected except Dave who just joined last month
Common Sense wants Larry to leave the council alone. HA! Sounds like a council majority member talking. That is exactly what corrupt government wants, to operate out of public view. Keep the heat on Ury and Kelley, who have demonstrated they cannot be trusted. Ury lies every time he opens his mouth, and Kelley is incapable of comprehending much of anything, and she does whatever the city staff tells her. She is supposed to represent the residents, not the city staff, and she has never understood that.
In the next city election, let’s hope someone with intelligence and integrity runs against Kelley. Meanwhile, watch everything they do.
I agree with Common Sense, but think they (The Council) are extraordinary citizens taking a job to help their City and taking abuse from way to many people. You could not pay me enough to be up there listening to all who complain and blog against them.
Corrupt?? How can that be if every time they vote to spend money it is for improvements to the benefit to our City? I know some people think the council members get an over ride from what ever construction company that does any thing in the way of City improvements. Has anyone ever produced proof of those claims? With out advertizing what I do for a living let me just say I have dealt with several different Cities and their personnel. Since I became aware of these allegations against our city council I have contacted a number of clients and friend who work for other cities. During many of these conversations I was told that their city was forced to change from contractors for a certain project because another bid came in lower. In several of those instances they were sorry they did so they got an inferior job by an unknown but cheaper bidder. How many readers would like to ride a rocket into space built by the cheapest bidder!!
While I don’t always agree with the decisions our counsel member are doing their jobs as best they can with no personal gain from their decisions to my knowledge. If someone knows differently please let us all know.
BTW did you all know that the major cost for what are being called “Tennis Improvements” is actually more to do with the swimming center?
Kime. Sorry to be late in responding. I had a few candidate stories to write.
Think about your words:
every time they vote to spend money it is for improvements to the benefit to our City?
Taking almost $400,000 out of our reserves for a Rose Parade float improved our city? Please show us how we benefited from 5 minutes of fame. Tonight the city council was cutting $500,000 from our budget.
Can we get a refund from Fiesta Floats? And you do not get to keep the truck which pulled your float.
It gets reused evey year.
Another example of great leadership and being true fiscal conservatives. NOT!