City Council’s agenda next Tuesday includes a boondoggle item to spend $215,000 to put in a drought tolerant garden at the Civic Center using unnamed grants and something called the Urban Runoff Fund.
The drought is hugely critical. As a friend pointed out to me, Many years of snowfall in the Sierras are needed more than just rainfall. Lake Mead water level is so critical that the hydroelectric power production from Hoover Dam is threatened. This is more serious than most people realize or understand.
This boondoggle has all the earmarks of a look-what-I-did campaign trick. Unacceptable. There are numerous locations around Brea that are excellent examples of drought sensitive landscaping.
No such thing as free money!
The fact that grants are available is not a selling point. Far too many tax payer dollars get wasted under the guise of grants passed from one level of government to another. The money in the “Urban Runoff Fund” came from somewhere (you), it isn’t free.
Please email or call Council members and demand a no vote on this useless and foolish expense.
Response to this blog and a similar comment string on the Nextdoor website indicate widespread objection to this project.
One neighbor posted on Nextdoor, “That must be some garden the City has in mind; can’t wait to see it. We’re planning to rip out our front lawn and go with a drought-tolerant planting, and have already had exchanges with a licensed, experienced firm that does just that.
They do commercial and government buildings as well and, in fact, recently finished one job that included several acres, complete with subsurface watering, etc. That whole job came to about $40,000.
I don’t know how many acres are being ‘improved’ down at the Civic Center, but maybe there are other aspects of this that the City plans to surprise us with. How many bids did they get, anyway?”
Multiple bids confirmed.
I’m told that three bids were made on the project. And $215,000 is the low bid? We’re talking something around 8,500 square feet. An acre is 43,560 square feet. The project mentioned above, at several acres, was completed for $40,000. Something is really wrong with the math here.
Roy Moore always gets ribbed for being such a “cheapskate” because he questions every expense that seems slightly out of line. I can only imagine the field day he will have over this price tag.
Matters from the audience.
I hope the lineup at the podium Tuesday evening, behind Mr. Fullington, wraps all the way around the room and that Council gets the full brunt of resident anger and disappointment. There is no world where passing this would be the right thing to do.
After a failed attempt by Simonoff to table the item for discussion of other sites, which died for a lack of a second, the real whitewashing of the boondoggle swung into full speed. Turns out this item came from the Development Committee, which is Marick’s little playground.
The “Civic & Cultural Center Demonstration Garden” did pass through the Finance Committee on it’s way to the agenda, which is where Moore and Simonoff should have buried it forever. They didn’t. Big mistake.
In the end, Murdock tried to imply that the Finance Committee’s request to put this on the agenda was a recommendation for approval. Hogwash. Murdock was just trying to create plausible deniability that he bore some of the blame. Moore and Simonoff should have roasted him on the spot!
In all fairness, Simonoff did correct the Mayor regarding approvals and mentioned how it would have helped not to cancel the study session when so many details needed ironing out. Too bad the antiquated sound system kept most from hearing his comments.
No Study Session? Why?
Several calls and emails from parents, surprised to see Hizzoner The Pool Boy out campaigning at the Arovista back-to-school night, certainly shed a little light on where Murdock’s priorities lie. It would appear the silly season is more important to him than some stupid garden… hence the yes vote without having added two words of intelligent comment on the subject.
There is no reason why Mayor Pro Tem Marick could not have conducted the Study Session if the Mayor was unable to attend. That is her job, right? Study Sessions are an important part of the process, if for no other reason than to clarify agenda items or any council reports.
A reasonable theory might be that if Marick conducted the Study Session she would be required to explain where the Mayor was should the question have come up… and it would have, I guarantee.
So, by canceling the Study Session the question could not be asked nor a response provided. I was also of the impression that neither the Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem have the authority to make such a unilateral decision.
This was small town politics at it’s worst.
The boondoggle steamrolls itself to victory.
The presentation, after a lot of nonsense about grants and funds, pointed out that current irrigation for the area in question is 285,000 gallons a year. The garden would reduce that to 93,000 gallons a year… a savings of 192,000 gallons. Sounds good, right?
The city pays 3 cents a gallon! Annual savings after spending $215,000 in tax payer funds, $5.760 per year! It will take over 30 years to recoup the expense from water savings.
I won’t even address the inappropriate and unrequested interjection from City Attorney Markman, Brea’s Water Czar, the man you can thank for tiered water rates (which will likely be proven to be illegal).
Moore, in the end, raised the questions that uncovered the astounding savings. He also tried to pin down staff on the appropriateness of using the Urban Runoff Fund for this expense, a fund built on households paying a $2.10 a month tax on their water bill for like… forever!
Murdock, Marick and Garcia – Yes — Moore and Simonoff – No.
Like this comes as a big surprise. I’m reminded again of Tim O’Donnell’s favorite definition of leadership, “Leadership is disappointing your constituents in increments they can absorb.”
Once again, public outcry is ignored and, as usual, we’ll unfortunately forget about it before election time. Or will we?
Finally, the OCR weighs in.
Well, sort of… in their hit-the-high-points-avoid-anything-that-remotely-suggests controversy style. Friday’s article, painfully absent any serious consideration of the public outcry expressed here and on the Nextdoor website, leaves the rapidly declining OCR readership with little to go on.
I’d give you a link to the OCR itself, but most of you no longer have subscriptions and are unable to get beyond their paywall.
Without continued and accelerated public outcry, which was stymied by the cancellation of the study session and inadequate announcement of the matter to the public, don’t expect to see any follow-up coverage from the OCR. Hopefully there will be continued interest from their editorial department.