Which Needs Warrant Funding?
by Larry Gilbert

In discussing our reserves a decade ago, a former Mission Viejo city councilwoman stated, "The purpose of having money is to spend it." There is a difference in necessary and appropriate expenditures when local governments are not in the public sector providing a product or service for sale.

With the recent discussion (and council majority approval) of building a million-dollar-plus dog park, several of the proponents argued that we had $8 million of developer fees for parks sitting in the bank so there is no reason why we can't simply move ahead and spend whatever it takes.

What they ignore are several factors such as an unknown cost to rehab the decking at the Nadadore swim and dive complex that is long overdue.

At an emergency meeting this past week our city council voted 4-1 to send $4.8 million of those in-lieu park funds to Sacramento based on an improper transfer of redevelopment funds.

Although that money is to be backfilled with a LC (letter of credit) by one of our developers we will not see that money until they pull permits for construction. Over the past few months, while this debate was ongoing, I heard residents share stories of kids urinating in the bushes at our ball fields as they lack restrooms.

In my ongoing year-end purging of documents I found a March 9, 2006, article in the Register's local Saddleback Valley News which headline read: "Push is on for park restrooms." The report begins: "Restrooms at a park may seem like a commonplace amenity. But at the 14 neighborhood parks in Mission Viejo, where sports teams practice Monday through Friday, that's not the case. So where do people go when they have to. Councilwoman Gail Reavis said she received e-mails from a resident showing people relieving themselves in bushes because of a lack of facilities at Melinda Park, off Santa Margarita Parkway." The closing line of that story reads: "It could cost up to $500,000 for restrooms alone, said Keith Rattay, director of public services." Fast forward to my Orange Juice blog post of March 30, 2007, where I reported our city approving $395,000 for the Melinda Park toilet. By the time all the bills were paid, including design and construction, that Capital Improvement project (#CIP 308) exceeded $400,000.

So we still have up to a dozen city parks used by our sports teams, and thousands of local resident children and visiting teams lacking toilets. So I take us back to that 2005 question. "So where do people go when they have to go?" The quick solution is Porta Potty's.

The bottom line. The fact that we may have checks in the city checkbook does not justify using them for special interests when future revenue streams are unpredictable and there are other recreation related needs.