Desi J. Kiss, Mission Viejo City Council candidate
Mission Viejo is Diving into the Marguerite Aquatic Complex Renovation
By Desi Joseph Kiss, MS, PE
On June 1, 2015 the Mission Viejo City Council agreed that the 43-year old Mission Viejo Aquatic Complex, used mostly by the Nadadores, needed renovation, and approved by 4-1 vote a total CIP budget of $7.7 million, for the design-build renovation and rehab project of the city owned facility, based on a study and needs assessment, dated February 2015, provided by Aquatic Design Group Inc. of Carlsbad, CA. Mayor Cathy Schlicht voted against it.
The Nadadores said they are committed to raising $1.37 million toward the renovations over 20 years. According to city staff the design phase will be completed in 13 months and construction implementation is scheduled to begin in September 2016 and is expected to take 1 1/2 years. According to City Manager Dennis Wilberg the project can be financed by the use $4.8 million in park development fees, which are collected from developers to mitigate the impact of new construction in Mission Viejo.
Opponents of the project say the city shouldn’t spend $1 million on a new state-of-the-art dive tower when the facilities aren’t open to the public full time. Apparently the Nadadores diving program serves fewer members – about 110 youths and adults – compared with the swimming program, with more than 650 members, and the fact that most of the divers don’t even live in Mission Viejo.
The plans to redesign the Marguerite Aquatics Complex, are moving forward again, thanks to a new 5-0 approval by the City Council on July 6, 2015, when the City Council unanimously approved a price tag of $598,500 for the design contract based on a qualified base selection and without a public bid process. Before voting, Mayor Cathy Schlicht mentioned a firm Jones & Mandhaven could provide the design for $450,000 and the construction for $1-1.5 million less, though it seemed to make no impact on the outcome, so she decided to vote to move the Project forward. The comment however made by the Mayor have raised serious areas of concern regarding this Project taking into account that the City already has a burden of approximately $20 million of unfunded liabilities.
The City Council vote to award a contract for the design and engineering services in an apparent “conflict of interest” to the same firm who has produced a deficient study and project cost estimate – Aquatic Design Group of Carlsbad, CA – without any public competitive bid process, in my view is irresponsible and harmful to us the residents and the taxpayers.
The renovation and rehab study of the Marguerite Aquatic Complex provided by the Aquatic Design Group Inc. in February 2015 was reviewed by the City of Mission Viejo staff, however due to apparent lack of professional and value engineering expertise, they have failed to identify the deficiencies of the study and various cost estimate pitfalls. For example the soils engineer fees were provided at 10 (ten) times the industry standards of $5-7,000.00 dollars for this type of work for a total of $70,000 and the construction of a dive tower to the tune of $1 Million, the advanced state of corrosion of the equipment and steel members and other utilities at the existing facility, just to name a few.
City staff’s recommendation to award a contract for the design and engineering services to Aquatic Design Group Inc without requests for proposals and a competitive public bid raises even more serious areas of concern about the competence of City staff, when design fees for a project of this magnitude, such as the existing Marguerite Aquatic Center renovation should be in the vicinity of approximately $400,000 based on common industry practice standards of a $6.9 Million renovation and rehab project of existing structures and facilities, and the fact that there are at least 3 other firms in Southern California who have the same or better credentials than Aquatic Design.
Why was the City Council not even interested in a competitive bid from at least 3 design firms that would bring the City of Mission Viejo and the taxpayers savings of approximately $200,000 just during the design phase? Such amount of money can be used for example: to improve the City’s traffic flow, build 1-2 much needed public restrooms at our City public parks that are used for sporting events (AYSO soccer, baseball, football and basketball) and or to make payments toward the City’s approximately $20 Million of unfunded liabilities, that I’m confident the media and City Council are well aware.
Moreover, it is very important to mention that on the Aquatic Design Group Inc. of Carlsbad, CA. June 26, 2015 contract proposal documents under Exclusion to Scope of Services the $70,000 Soils/Geothechnical report is excluded from their contract proposal and must be provided by the City or others that would bring the total design fee costs to approximately $668,500 not including reimbursable expenses, plus a 15 % mark up, that would also add to the total cost of the design phase of this project.
Furthermore, the last experience of a City conducted and monitored CIP project with the La Paws Park project, when the same procedure was used, (a sole contractor for all phases from conception to construction) resulted in a project with many field implementation problems, change orders and major cost overruns. The issue now on the table with the existing Aquatic Complex renovation and rehab project is that this is a much larger facility and project that requires high engineering expertise in various fields, with the probability of cost overruns, that already appear visible from the start of the project, with this staff recommendation for the design phase of the project.
During the discussion prior to the approval only council member Sachs questioned the lengthy design process of 13 months, the expected change orders, and the contract cost, while the Mayor placed into the record the letter from Jones and Mandhaven – Architecture & Engineering that was sent to her and Mayor Pro Tem Gregory Raths indicating the $450,000 design fee for the renovation project and $1 – 1.5 million less for the construction implementation cost. Council member Wendy Bucknum apparently had no interest in any cost savings and indicated that Acquatic Design has a great brochure with pictures.
Is the present city council fiscal conservative? The role council members is to serve the interest of the residents they represent, which includes establishing reasonable boundaries and time frames for expenditures and capital improvement projects. How is that served when a renovation design-build project of an existing facility is estimated lo last 2 1/2 years from design to construction implementation and when potential savings of $200,000 of taxpayer money were simply ignored from the start of the project?
Desi J. Kiss, M.S., P.E., is a Business Executive with over 35 years experience in engineering and in the field of design-build and project management of multi faced projects, and served as Engineering Faculty at California State University Fullerton, Civil and Mechanical Engineering Departments. Mr. Kiss obtained his Master Degree from CSUF and He can be reached at 949-458-9169.
Copyright © 2015 All rights reserved
The Elitest Swim team has consistently marshaled their minions to extract resources from the Mission Viejo tax payers. The Nads only pay a miniscilar part of the utilities-grudgingly- and $1.00 a year ave rent.
Wendy Bucknum should have recused herself on any maters concerning this expenditure due to her club involvement. But she blithering ignored her involvemt t–and indeed packed the audience with self serving recipients of funds that should be spent on other city needs. Bucknum continues a pattern of duplicity.
While our soccer youth pee in bushes for lack of park restrooms Bucknums bunch of elitist will hog city recreation funds.
“Is the present city council fiscal conservative?”
Of course it is, after all every member is a Republican, right? This is the same bill of goods that gets sold all over the country. That Republicans are fiscal conservatives, and they do not waste “our money.”
Guess what, only the beneficiary of the largess changes. They spend like everyone else.
Now, that money is for spending on the city. So I have no objections to it as long as what the citizens want. But please end this nonsense about “fiscal conservatism” It simply does not exist.
When the city needed to upgrade a tennis center, the battle over funding lasted several years, and the cost and the project grew from an initial estimate of around $300,000 to well over $5 million. Hidden in that was the cost of upgrading the Nadadores entry, and the increased parking which also benefited the private entity.
The battle cry at that point was “the elite tennis members of a private club” even though the tennis facilities are the city’s were there since before incorporation, and membership is open to all.
And now you have a completely private entity (Nadadores again) getting funded to the tune of $7 million and how long did this deal take?
Mere months.
What do they call Republicans who whine and whine about reckless spending and turn around and does exactly that?
I call them Republicans.
Look at Joe above. He is singling out Wendy Bucknum as if her vote was crucial in a 4-1 landslide. Note how the “good” Republicans like Sachs and Raths are excluded from his ire. I’m surprised that he did chastise Ury in his complaint.
Or how a 5-0 for the redesign came about with fiscal conservatives when one of them actually identified a cheaper alternative.
I rarely respond to articles such as Mr. Kiss’, but so many facts are misrepresented in his post.
Mr. Kiss states properly that the Mission Viejo Aquatics Center is used mostly by the non-profit Nadadores Swim team. Although I know that they have helped train a number of military recruits that want to be Navy Seals or Air Force Para Rescue, on the swimming requirements that are tested at no charge. He is also correct that the facility is in dire need of renovation, due exclusively to the maintenance neglect over tens of years. He is also correct that ADG, Inc. did the needs assessment. However the only CIP authorized by the city council is for $700K to cover the $598K design work awarded to ADG, Inc. awarded in a unanimous council vote. The needs assessment totaling $7.7M was approved by council in a 4-1 vote, with the provision that through a promissory note signed by the city and the Nadadores Foundation in the amount of $1.3M, which more than covers the cost of the dive facility, is accepted as part of the favorable council vote to proceed. I will also point out that a private foundation has pledged $500K to the Nadadores contingent that the dive facility being part of the total renovations.
Further the author complains that “the city shouldn’t spend $1M on a new state of the art dive tower when the facilities aren’t open to the pubic full time.” As stated above, the city is not spending money on the dive facility, the Nadadores are paying for that. As to the ratio of divers to swimmers, I think you will find that this facility, in its current state, has a higher ratio of divers to swimmers than does any summer games Olympic event. But more, is the author saying that if the dive tower were available to more members of the public he would not have an issue in paying for the dive facility? Will he be the first to dive off the top of the platform?
Mr. Kiss also comments on not having a bid process for the design work. As an engineer, he should be aware that contracting for municipal services with professional entities such as legal, medical, engineering and the like, under California Code only require a professional demonstration of excellencnt quality of work. There is no requirement of a formal bid process here, as there would be for say landscapers, tree trimmers or trash removal. As for bringing other design work pricing after the presentation by ADG, Inc, I would be shocked if they would bring forward an equal to or higher cost presentation. And the final presentation in this paragraph stating the city has $20M in unfunded liabilities, shows again the lack of attention paid to council meetings and the budgeting process and approval.
One of the first motions I made as a new councilman was to pay the $1.3M unfunded healthcare liability down to zero. This was a 5-0 vote that has eliminated that liability forever. Another proposal I made during the budgeting process was to spend an additional $2m over the necessary ARC payments to Calpers, in order to take our unfunded pension liability from 76% funded to the golden range of 85% funded. Any competent actuary will tell you that over funding beyond 85% is like paying more taxes each month to the IRS so you can get a tax refund. Only in the case of pension programs, you never get a refund, you only over pay. It would be fiscally irresponsible to pay more of the people’s money than necessary to this pension fund. Finally his $20M number is about $2M high even before the healthcare payoff.
As to the lack of “professional and value engineering expertise,” that Mr Kiss attributes to ADG, Inc. I can only rely upon the fact that ADG, Inc. has completed more than 60 aquatic projects for Universities and Colleges in California and has done over 2,500 projects over the past 30 years. Thus far, none have caved in, or fallen apart due to a lack of engineering expertise. Also the advanced state of corrosion of equipment and steel members at the dive tower, that ADG, Inc. pointed out, was exactly the reason the rehabilitation was absolutely necessary. We will not even touch liability issues and the costs in the project to bring the entire facility into 21st Century ADA requirements.
Throughout the article Mr. Kiss presents on several occasions the need for a bid process and I have answered that complaint. But he further contends that money he could save on this project could be used to improve the City’s traffic flow, and build 1-2 bathrooms in our public parks. Again, it is apparent that the well intended author has failed to read the approved FY 16/17 city budget, that fully funds traffic flow issues and works with surrounding cities on Measure M funds to allow traffic flow improvements between cities, and also that I had asked that two bathroom facilities be included in the new budget. One bathroom will be completed in FY16 and the other in FY17. In addition, I am hoping that at the mid budget review, we will find unspent, or over allocated monies for a third bathroom in the same time period.
Mr Kiss rightly points out that I did question a number of items in the assessment, including a conversation about change orders. As soon as we begin to award demolition and construction contracts, you will see new language in those contracts that will deal exclusively with change orders and who is responsible for paying the costs of the change order. Rather than a lengthy explanation here I invite you to go the the video of this portion of the council discussion to better understand my comments.
As for the authors last paragraph, you would be hard pressed to find someone more fiscally responsible than I. First I invite anyone to go look at the swimming facility yourself, not certain if even the author has done this, and see the stage of decay that exists. I was the first to dismiss the spending of $800K for solar power for 50% of the facility needs when gas will do 100% of the facility needs for considerably less money. To think that 2 1/2 years is too long for a project of this size to take, is to admit to cutting corners and underestimating the degree of damage and necessary renovation.
Finally, and I thank you for your patience in reading this, all of the requests that have been made during the budgeting process have been accomplished while at the same time, not touching one penny of the city’s reserves. Payoff and pay down of healthcare and pension liability. Check. Two new park bathrooms. Check. The multimillion dollar renovation of the Aquatic Center that will include private funding from the Nadadores. Check. The cutting of budget items to fund $330,000 economic development exploration. Check. The city having to absorb an increase to the Sheriff’s Department contract ($2M increase) that included a 3% union negotiated (with the county) pay increase and the funding of a new regional service headquarters and a new jail to the streets patrolman training expenses. Yes, we had to bite that bullet.
The city began the year with $27M in reserves and we will do all the above, and still end the year with $27M in reserves. As to projects that took place before I joined the council, I would not speak to that. I will, however, take full responsibility for my decisions while on this city council and that is what I do call fiscally responsible and taking care of the public interest.
Thanks for taking the time to reply Ed!
To whom it may concern:
From the City of MV public record . A copy of the confirmation from Jones & Madhavan – Engineering & Architecture of Thousand Oaks that has the same qualifications or better to provide design-build services for the same project.
From: Doug Jones
Sent:Wednesday, July 1, 2015 5:14 PM
To: Cathy Schlicht
Cc: Greg Raths
Subject: RE: design contract – Marguerite Aquatics Complex
Cathy,
I quickly reviewed the Assessment Study and the Option 3 scope of work for the project. Based on this
scope, I believe the construction cost before adding soft costs could be reduced by $1 to $1.5 million
and still provide the City with a quality facility that meets your aquatic needs. Our design fee would be
around $450,000 and we would be pleased to submit a design proposal for your comparison.
Sincerely,
Doug Jones, PE
Principal
Jones & Madhavan
100 E Thousand Oaks Blvd, Suite 211
Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
805-777-8449 x105
—–Original Message—–
From: Cathy Schlicht [mailto:cschlicht@cityofmissionviejo.org]
Sent:Wednesday, July 01, 2015 3:28 PM
To: doug@jmae.com
Cc: Greg Raths
Subject: design contract -Marguerite Aquatics Complex
Dear Mr. Jones.
Thank you for taking the time to briefly talk to me this afternoon in regards to the pending renovation of
the Marguerite Aquatics Complex.
Staff has recommended the council award the design contract to Aquatic Design Group for the amount
of $593,000. This recommendation is without the benefit of the RFP process. This same company
created the Facility Review Needs Assessment Study which I have included in the below links, for your
review.
Our council meeting is thisMonday, July 6. If you believe your firm can do the same work for
significantly less, I will forward to you this evening the proposal and contract offered to Aquatic Design.
If you can confirm that the contract amount of $593,000 is indeed excessive then I will make a motion
for the city to out to to bid.
I have copiedMayor Pro Tem Raths on this e-mail. Greg, you can view this company’s profile – Jones &
Madhavan – Architecture Engineering – at http://jmae.com/jm_comfac.htm
Again, I would like to thank you for taking my call.
Sincerely, Cathy Schlicht, Mayor, Mission Viejo
I would like to thank Mr. Sachs for his reply. The provision mentioned by Mr. Sachs that through a promissory note signed by the city and the Nadadores Foundation in the amount of $1.3M, which more than covers the cost of the dive facility, is accepted as part of the favorable council vote to proceed, actually is over a period of 20 YEARS!
The question is how can the Nadadores pay TODAY 1 million dollars for the dive tower if they have signed a promissory note to reimburse the city & taxpayers $ 1.3 million over 20 YEARS? It clearly seems fuzzy math to me.
As far as other firms doing it better and more cost efficiently and effectively please view the post above for an official offer from Jones & Madhaven – Architecture & Engineering. 450K for the design , 150 K less than Aquatic Design and w/ regards to construction cost the offer was 1-1.5 million dollars less and that Aquatic Design and that speaks volumes.
Also please note In addition to Jones & Mandhaven there are at least 3 other firms that have the same or better qualifications just here is SoCal that were NOT even considered.
One final point to Mr. Sachs statement that ” I can only rely upon the fact that ADG, Inc. has completed more than 60 aquatic projects for Universities and Colleges in California and has done over 2,500 projects over the past 30 years. Thus far, none have caved in, or fallen apart due to a lack of engineering expertise.”
According to this statement : 2,500 projects/30 years= 83.33 projects per year=6.94 (say 7) project/month for this firm seems a bit a stretch. Then how can this be explained? – It takes this firm to complete the design in 15 months or by some other accounts 13 months (let just say for simplification 1 year) on this particular “remodeling” project – and at this rate in 30 years according to my math is only 30 projects FAR from the 60 projects for Universities and Colleges in California that Mr. Sachs stipulates in his comment and LIGHT YEARS from the total number of 2,500 projects indicated.
As far as the construction goes: 1.5 years for a small remodeling project? At this rate in 30 years this company could not build or provide field construction implementation to more than 20. This number is NOT even close to the 60 Universities and Colleges in California and galaxies away from 2,500.
It is just simple common sense and elementary math and certainly it is NOT fuzzy. QED
Last response Desi,
Your assumptions are wildly off base assuming each project takes a year. Do you think that ADG. Inc. is actually also doing the demolition and the contracted rehabilitation? They are an engineering and design group! Do structural engineers build structures? Do electrical engineers wire buildings? Do automotive engineers build the engines and work the assembly lines? You also do not account for working in any number of States. If you doubt the data presented, then go ask the group that does the work. Or you can call me anytime and I will get you whatever answers you have, and even set up an appointment with the design group for you. Then you can post your mea culpa.
Hi Ed,
Although I appreciate your reply and view, I don’t think that I need lectures from anyone on this subject: design-build, engineering, civil/structural engineering and project management. So I’m saving your valuable time and mine for some other more important issues on behalf of our community.
As a lead engineer of one of the largest superstructures in the world (http://djkeng.tripod.com/delta.pdf) while I was at the Austin Company in Irvine, I know what it takes, since in only two (2) years we have both designed and also built from scratch Boeing’s DETAL IV Rocket Manufacturing Facility, the 3rd largest superstructure by volume in the World. It absolutely ridiculous for ADG Inc. to take 13 months do design for a simple renovation( if they are so outstanding in engineering design as you claim) and 2 1/2 years to complete a simple design-build rehab project. Their study has many deficiencies and to estimate a soils/geotechnical report at 70 K ( @ 10 times more that the industry standard for such a report) is simply outrageous. I strongly believe that there are other companies in SoCal like Jones and Madnhaven (who BTW has done CSUF’s Aquatic Complex , Hayward University, Los Angeles Unified School District, LA Community College District just to name a few) and at least 3 others who could do a much better job more cost effectively and efficiently. Ultimately it is our taxpayer money at stake.
The bottom line is this: the CC has ignored them, including the fact that the Mayor presented publicly prior to the CC Vote, the 450 K offer for the design and the $ 1-1.5 million less on the construction cost. Since you extensively wrote about these kind of projects in the past ( i.e. MV projects of the last few years such as: Community Center, Tennis Center, La Paws Park etc) I’m deeply surprised that you are still defending this bad deal for the Mission Viejo taxpayers, when you are well aware that there is no way that this rehab can be completed for $7.7 M (witch includes the 700K design fees ) As far as “mea culpa” is concerned, I will accept yours any time you would like to make it either private or public. This his my honest opinion, wishing you good luck with this “special interest project” and good heath. And with this I close the subject.
This special interest project has shown the true colors of the 5 republicans on the Mission Viejo city council. Some have been clearly compromised as “fiscal conservatives” and now have to face the music.
Ury and Bucknum are big spenders and supporters of the Nadadores (a private entity), and perhaps only Schlicht used common sense and voted her conscience.
However the 4-1 vote to fund this very controversial project, is a landslide, and speaks volumes about “fiscal conservatism” in Mission Viejo,