Spin City’s Dog Park

During a campaign speech last year, incumbent Frank Ury said the Dog Park wouldn’t cost more than $850,000. The dispute now is whether it has reached $1.1 million or $1.4 million. For those watching the process, the true cost is closer to $2 million.

Phase 1 of the dog park occurred nearly 10 years ago when then-city administrator Rick Howard was in charge of finding a dog park site. He had no real job in city hall, so he drove a city vehicle around town, photographing the city parks. He occasionally displayed his handiwork at council meetings -- slideshows of parks – claiming none of the sites was suitable.

Phase 2 of the dog park consisted of push-polls paid for by taxpayers. In 2006, a poll found some support among residents who were asked to choose from a list of proposed projects. Public opinion turned against a dog park when residents learned it would cost $1 million. By 2008, a similar poll showed only 3 percent supported a dog park.

Phase 3 of the dog park was when the city staff proceeded in 2009 to design a dog park with almost no public support. The city hired a contractor to design a dog park at Alicia Park. The plan was scrapped when neighbors of the location opposed a dog park near their homes.

Phase 4 of the dog park was when it was designed for Oso Park. The council had deemed a dog park should not be near a school, homes or city park. The Oso Park location violated all three criteria, and the dog park site was again rejected by neighbors. In November 2009, the Oso Park neighbors filed a lawsuit against the city, adding legal fees to the dog park’s cost.

Phase 5 of the dog park was the selection of its current site on Felipe. The Felipe site isn’t the first phase, and the cost didn’t reset to zero. Those wanting to know the cost should include charges for the fiascos at previous locations. Prior to starting work at the Felipe site, the city made a bad real estate swap, trading the city’s 7 buildable acres near the animal shelter for the 3 acres on a steep hillside near Felipe. The city of Rancho Santa Margarita held title to the three acres where the dog park is being built.

When a council candidate forum was held in October 2012 prior to the city election, the dog park was discussed. That’s when Ury indicated the dog park would cost $850,000. Here’s the source for Ury’s remark: http://www.ocregister.com/news/city-375680-ury-park.html

Ury said: “According to city documents, the initial phase of the park's development, estimated at $850,000, includes grading, drainage, turf irrigation, fencing and construction of a gravel parking lot.”

The “initial phase” now means preliminary work at the Felipe site. The word “initial” indicates there’s more to come. The city has released selected costs revealing $1.4 million has been spent to date, as stated in an Oct. 18 OC Register story, http://www.ocregister.com/articles/park-531856-dog-city.html

The numbers within the article don’t add up, nor do they include the loss from the land swap. As an additional unmentioned cost, the city agreed to restore grassland, as required by U.S. Fish and Wildlife, on the 3 acres formerly owned by the city of Rancho Santa Margarita.

Whatever “phase” the dog park is in, it clearly isn’t the last one. The dog park has no lighting, seating, curbs, sidewalks, restrooms, trees, shrubs or any other features that will be added.

According to city documents, $21,834 was raised by a group, but no one knows the amount of taxpayer money that was used for overhead in fundraising or for “donations.” With CAL-Cards in the hands of 30 city employees and City Manager Dennis Wilberg spending up to $30,000 without council approval, try doing the math. Until taxpayers have a council majority of responsible adults, no one is going to know the costs.

The dog park is the city’s fiasco, and the fiasco manager is Keith Rattay. He said during a council meeting that “residents had approached the city” volunteering to help with planting. That’s not exactly what happened. Taxpayers paid for the city staff’s literature about the dog park, which included a plea for help. A 10-year-old saw the request and responded.

When citizens – especially children – want to do good deeds and perform acts of charity, they should be directed to charitable causes. When citizens call city hall, asking for information on where to perform charitable work, the city staff should either respond with a list or charities or answer “we don’t have that information.”

Rattay provided the following spin in the Oct. 18 OCR article cited above:

“We wouldn’t even be bringing this up except that we had requests from residents to do the planting,” Rattay said. Rattay said one of the City Council’s goals is to involve the community in city projects and planting in the park would provide that opportunity. “Basically, we’re trying to accommodate the residents,” he said.

Asking for volunteers to perform manual labor after taxpayers have been fleeced by city hall does not “accommodate the residents.”