Dear Council Members and Cabinet Members,
Last night I attended a workshop that Parks and Recreation hosted which seems to be a justification for raising fees on citizens, if the heading "service and fee study," the first line of the announcement is to be believed. I spoke with presenters Al and Chris, who identify themselves as consultants in the field of recreation.
I disagree that the presentation that was given by Green Play should be considered a consulting activity. First of all, the council has stated that they do not want for Department Directors to bring in consultants. Moreover, what was presented at the meeting was a boiler plate set of forms that does not meet the threshold of a true consulting service since one of the managing partners, Chris, mentioned that they use the same instruments everywhere. This would indicate that they are vendors selling the same package over and over--not actual consultants who offer very specific and usually case-sensitive solutions to difficult problems.
Green Play presenters identified their documents and groupings as a "process," a "methodology," and a "study," yet they disagreed with me when I and another attendee pointed out that there was terrible bias in the design of the presentation since attendees did not represent a valid survey sample of Encinitas residents. They seemed to do an outreach to people who went to the senior center, yet I only found out about it because I saw an announcement at City Hall. They said that they were interested in studying all of the recreation services the city offered, but the people in the meeting were only a narrow sampling of people who might use recreation services yet did not know about this meeting. Because the outreach was limited to people who were at the City during particular times, most citizens were not aware of these meetings.
The presenters said that their goal was to start "a conversation" and "raise awareness" about issues without creating a reliable way to capture information or to define their terms. They claimed that they were not trying to do valid studies yet identified their information gathering as "a study." I asked them for a list of protocols, and they said that they trained Parks and Recreation staff yet did not have anything in writing. Why is that? One of the hallmarks of actual consulting work is that the rules of how a formal activity like the one I attended is performed need to be written so that others can understand what took place and evaluate the results.
Why does the City continue to hire firms that produce poor results, or no valid results at all as in this case? I find it hard to believe that the council would approve this program with the unhappy history of consultants that we have had in the past.
Below is an article about a sports park that is named as one of Green Play's clients. Please stop wasting our money on this and other recently hired consultants for the Housing Element update. There are ample residents who would DONATE their skills and work collaboratively with staff to design and process valid studies that would not only save money, but would more accurately capture the will of Encinitas citizens. The stated goals and outcomes that the presenters sought in these meetings were not met since they are not measurable or valid.
I am very sorry to say this, but based on what I saw, whatever you paid them was too much. It looks like the city wants to raise fees on residents, and this is the real reason that you have brought these people in.
Sincerely,
Julie Graboi
http://avlne.ws/1tTrQuW
Check the link at the bottom of Graboi's e-mail. Asheville is building a $5.4 million sports park and is planning to fund it by hosting paid-attendance regional sports tournaments and selling beer. Our park cost many tens of millions to build. What's Green Play's plan to pay for that?
And if the city is telling us that the Peak Democracy blog is the only acceptable tool to gather public input for the Housing Element, why wouldn't it be appropriate to use it to collect opinions on park fees?
UPDATE: Green Play's fees to the city for running five very small meetings for a handful of people? $17,503.50.
Thanks Julie for demonstrating you do not understand how government work or private industry for that matter. Consultants in every segment work off templates and boilerplates that they and industry associations create and then adjust them to unique circumstances. To believe that every city is wholly unique is just being ignorant. Besides, consultants would have to charge a lot more if they had to create everything anew each time.
ReplyDeleteJulie, you're just not ready for prime time.
9:30- Thanks for confirming why authoritarians want the teaching of critical thinking banned from public schools.
DeleteI'm sure that is how consultants work, but that doesn't make it right. The bottom line is we don't need these consultants or the expense....
Delete9:30
DeleteThanks for sharing. Perhaps you will be so kind as to share your name?
Doing so would help us to better understand how credible your opinion and positions might be.
Thank you
Andrew Audet
Don't look behind the curtain!
DeleteAndrew, as someone who doesn't share their name, I unfortunately have to once again state the case for not sharing your name. A lot of current and potential employers and clients don't want to see your name online at all, let alone in a potentially contentious arena.
DeleteI would be happy to share my name, but what if a potential employer has the opposing view contrary to what I stated on the blog?
Employers do and will look up your online profile. Believe me, I am jealous of those of you who are so self sufficient and self contained that you can post your name without fear of reprisal.
The rest of us sadly cannot..
-MGJ
Julie,
ReplyDeleteDo you work in consulting? I do.
In fact, I design highly automated repeatable engagements that use the same tools, methods, training, and deliverable template over and over. We run the same engagement type The same way for major corporate clients thousands of times, so that we can benchmark a specific client's results against the general market, and a cluster of peers from the same industry. Repeatable engagements also allow us to track major trends and expose how companies are evolving over time. Repeatable engagements also allow us to track and manage the quality of our engagements and consultants over time. We know exactly which tools need improvement, and which practioners are doing best practice work we can build into future training.
All of this Has tremendous value to our clients, and we charge about 200K for a quick three week engagement.
Of course, Some consulting must be bespoke, because of the nature of the client problem. But a repeatable engagement can offen provide better information, faster.
In short, you have no idea what you are talking about. Please stop. Talk to someone in the business before you offer opinions.
9:52 Perhaps you are unfamiliar with city business and finances. It is understandable as clearly you have important customers to serve.
DeleteThe majority of tax revenue paid by residents is not being used to fix roads, improve parks, repair buildings and serve residents. The city is $47 million behind in road repairs, $6M behind in building repairs, and recently looted $7 million from funded projects like open space acquistion, sewer repair, rail crossing and safe routs to schools to plug budget shortfalls and city financial mismanagement.
While there is little money for residents there is much money for city staff salaries, special luxury hires, consultants, lawyers and other outside vendors like Peak Democracy providing little return for the money they are paid.
Surely, as the astute business person you appear to be, you would agree that if the city is paying a Parks and Rec Director close to $200,000 a year, and as that Parks and Rec Director has full access to city staff- including mind you a recently hired communications director at an approved salary up to $135,000 annually, that these internal resources should be more than capable of running a community meeting.
I thank Julie for keeping the community aware. Why is the city again raising fees on residents after telling us we have a stable budget? Why was this fees raising outreach largely unknown by teh community.
Perhaps you disagree, I suspect a $200,000 fee for service could influence one's perception.
Thanks Julie for keeping us posted. Win or lose, you walk the walk.
Andrew Audet
9:52 a stellar example of Orwellian syntax bespoken like a fictitious persona.
DeleteSo on the one hand commenters bemoan staff salaries and pensions but on the other hand complain about hiring consultants that supplement hiring staff. Even when staff does make proposals, commenters here complain they're just feathering their nest.
DeleteThere are good and bad consultants just as there are good and bad anything. Some consultants will just take their boilerplate and stick in the numbers without taking into consideration local circumstances. The good ones will use their knowledge and boilerplates to create a customized result. I have no idea yet how these consultants will perform but that doesn't matter here. The point is to be outraged.
And that's the whole point of this blog, isn't it. To be continually outraged. And it succeeds quite well at doing that no matter how inaccurate or trivial the issue. Just keep your blood boiling.
Andrew Audet has no idea of how to run a city but he sure is impressed with himself. And what a performer. He loves a good crowd.
AA,
DeleteI understand and agree that the city should be good stewards of our resources. While there will always be room for improvement, the city's finances are not quite as dire as you want to believe.
If you care to read the latest CAFR financial report, you'd find a table on page 137 that show that our population has grown from 64,145 in 2009 to 65,171 in 2013, an increase of 1.5%. During the Same period, city staff declined from 240.6 FTE to 236.35 FTE (page 139), a decline in headcount of 1.8%. So we actually have fewer staff in both absolute and per capita terms. The latest five year period continues a longer trend for the city.
There is a good reason repeatable consulting engagements exist, and clients pay for them. By making the engagement repeatable, you can improve the methods, quality, efficiency and effectiveness over time. An outside contractor can often deliver better results, faster, and at less cost than an internal team doing it for the first time. I'm not opposed to the city using outside contractors in areas where the service can be delivered more efficiently by experts.
That's the point that Julie misses. She has a definition of consulting that only includes bespoke consulting, which is flat wrong.
Thank you city staffer, now go back to standing around the water fountain.
DeletePS- you are over paid and underworked.
11:05 AM
DeleteThe population numbers are incorrect. As for number of employees - The 2013 comprehensive annual financial report ended on June 30, 2013. How many employees has Vina hired or duped the council into approving positions since then?
Last but not least why aren't some of the highly paid planners doing the work?
11:05
DeleteThe city is $47 million behind in road repairs.
The city is $6 million behind in building repairs
The city looted $7 million from funded projects in 2013 t
The money looted included $300,000 for Chesterfield quiet zons
The money looted include Cotton wood park improvements
THe money looted included sewer repairs
The money looted included nearly $1 million for open space.
The city is now being fined $430,000 for illegal discharges
In 2013 the city had to put property up as collateral for the Hall Park Bonds as finances are so bad
Since 2013 annual interest payments on debt are planned to increased by $1.2 million annually taking money away from the projects listed above
If as you claim the city is in good shape then -
1. Why is there no money to fix our roads?
2. Why is there no money to repair our buildings?
3. Why were we told the city has a stable budget, while the $7 million was taken from funded projects?
4. Why is the city proposing raising taxes?
5. Why has the city raised fees?
Well run city's fix their roads and repair their buildings, poorly run city's fall behind and then seek to raise taxes on residents. Which is Encinitas?
Given all 5 council members signed their names to ballot statement lies sent to every voter and city manager Vina withheld financial information from the public why would I trust any statistic the city provides to the public- that is the thing about credibility, one has it or they don't.
The only repeatable consulting method used in Encinitas has been manipulating the public at taxpayer expense. Encinitas has a long history of consultants hired to manipulate results to support pre-planned political positions.
1. Peter Norby contract
2. MIG Contract
3. Steele Cardiff Plan Draft
4. Hall Park outreach plan
5. Lew Edwards tax group
To name a few.
Perhaps you share with us an example of where an outside city contractor has delivered better results and less cost for the taxpayers of Encinitas?
Might you also be so kinds as to provide your name? It could help us evaluate the merits of your opinions.
Andrew Audet
11:05 makes some good points, although I think a lot of the commenters are trying to make a larger point about allocation of city resources, and the fact that some of the necessities in running a city (Roads, building repairs, drainage) aren't being met.
DeleteI think there's a middle ground between improving efficiencies, budgeting, manpower etc. and being able to bring in consultants. The problem is that in the past, and continuing into this era, there have been some huge mistakes in purchasing properties and planning for future growth and infrastructure maintenance. The Hall Park, Mossy Property and now Pac View all speak to lack of planning, negotiating skill and flat out lack of understanding of real estate value and its evaluation.
People are rightly upset, and though consultants shouldn't bear all the blame, it's one are that needs to be looked at in terms of overall efficiency. That said, your point on methodologies in consulting is correct. Julie made a bit of a broad brush there
-MGJ
AA,
DeleteYou call it a "raid." As someone with extensive business experience, I call it common sense. The city had pools of money sitting idle in dedicated accounts for years tied to partially funded projects with no plan or identified funding sources to fully fund the project. That money was sitting idle while inflation reduced the value slowly year after year after year. At the same time, money was needed to complete the park. Would you rather leave the dead money to continue it's depreciation and borrow more to complete the park? Or maybe you think it would be better to stop work on the park with it 80% complete behind fences. Common sense says reallocate and complete the park today.
As to your laundry list of deferred maintenance, in a perfect world we wouldn't have any. But I challenge you to name ONE city in all of California with zero deferred maintenance. Just one. Good luck.
Also, the road condition report showed our roads are actually in better shape than most cities around here.
I'm tired of the professionally disgruntled class. It must be a huge boost to your ego to feel like the important whistle blower that you pretend to be.
Hello 1:39
DeleteIf the city truly had pools of money sitting idle then surely you would agree the money could be put to use fixing our broken roads or repairing what council member Kranz claimed in March was $6 million in failing building repairs.
As for the partially funded projects you claim you must admit those projects now sit unfunded, and residents under-served, while at the same time the council past and current have raised fees on residents, increased salaries for city staff, proposed raising taxes, hired $1 million dollar plus consultants and discussed forcing parking meters on the community to gain access to residents money. Common sense says proper planning prevents poor performance, it hardly sounds like Encinitas has planned wisely.
You are certainly entitled to the opinion that raiding $7 million from funds set aside to help build safe route to schools, acquire open space, repair sewers, improve parks, create beach access and serve the community with no plan or ability to pay the money back was a wise move.
I disagree. Well managed city's fix their roads and fund their projects. Badly led cities raid funds to plug budget holes and poor planning while raising fees and taxes on residents. Unfortunately, Encinitas has proven itself to be the latter.
Andrew Audet
11:05 AM -- Get your figures correct. According to the US Census the population of Encinitas in 2010 was 59,518. The estimated population in 2013 was 61,588. Are your other figures as unreliable?
Delete1:52,
DeleteI cited exact source and page. Seek and ye shall find.
I also clearly wrote that the time period was a five year period from 2009 - 2013 (not 2010)
One of us has a problem with precision, but it an't me.
AA,
DeleteI'll meet you in the middle.
The city had a particular set of facts that drove the decision to reallocate $7M. Given the circumstances, they made the right call. However, maybe better foresight would have avoided the position where the park fell short of the goal line. On that we could agree.
As far as partial funding vs. no funding, I'm not sure one is any better than the other. If a pedestrian underpass costs $12M, whether the account is empty or 10% funded, there's still no underpass. I would rather sweep ten projects funded at 10% into one completed project.
2:37
DeleteWith all respect it may be disingenous to compare a $12M project when what actually was raided were many, many, many small projects. $300,000 from Chesterfield Quiet Zones, maybe $100,000 from Cottonwood Creek, Maybe $200,000 from beach access, near $1 million in open space acquisition.
At the 2013 capital budget meeting multiple residents asked for these projects to be completed, they were told by City Manager VIna Encinitas had a stable budget and these were part of Strategic Planning, Shortly after the city raised fees on on residents- and the projects remain unfunded.
As for the Hall Park decision, below is a post, about raising fee's. Turns out the city doesn't have the $800,000 a year to maintain the Hall Park, this is not surprising, taxpayers warned the city this would happen.
If we agree that well run citities manage their finances and fund projects then perhaps we would agree that poorly led citities underfund projects, raise fees on residents and soon need to raise taxes. Sadly, Encinitas is the latter.
Andrew Audet
Andrew
DeleteIt's just so much fun to say "raided". It makes it sound devious. That's your MO unfortunately. Hype everything. For someone who claims to know what to do, your name not being on the ballot this November is quite the omission. I guess you can sling it but you can't take it. I'm sure it has to do with other obligations. Yeah sure.
4:59 Thank you for sharing.
DeleteIn 2013 the city took, looted, raided, absconded, reappropriated, $7 million from funded projects with no plan to pay it back. Shortly after the city raised fees on residents.
I went to city hall and spoke in opposition suggesting the city take a responsible approach to funding the budget holes that included belt-tightening. The council went the other way.
The projects remain unfunded and residents in all five communities have aksed why the city can't complete the projects- the answer sadly is the city has no money.
Perhaps you could be so kind as to provide your name, it could bring credibility to your opinions and help facilitate a debate of important ideas, rather than as you say - slinging it.
Andrew Audet
Andrew. I guess you can't accept ideas or arguments without knowing who is saying them irrespective of whether they make sense. Such a closed mind.
Deleteand another gutless provacatuer opines with little facts- do you have any 1:21 or only envy that others have balls while you don't? pea's my friend, the size of shriveled peas 1:21
DeleteOooh, what repartee 2:13 PM! If I'm so gutless where is your name? Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't envy Andrew at all. The sad thing is you can't refute what I said, instead you just try to insult me. Very weakly I might add. You'll have to try a lot harder than that to get a rise out of me. It was weak tea and certainly pretty juvenile.
DeleteStay true to your tribe and don't let any counter arguments cloud your mind.
3:26, ah 1:21 what exactly did you say? You listed no facts on any issues- you slung some mud, ranted a bit and split- you sound like Kranz, a bit confused and angry-, good luck with that
DeleteThe Hall Park, brought to you by Pabst Blue Ribbon!
ReplyDeleteIll drink to that...
DeleteThe council had stated that there would be no more consultants. What they meant was that they would hide the number of hired consultants in the budget.
ReplyDeleteSo far this year the city manager has signed consulting contracts totaling $250,000 for the planning department. Lisa Rudloff, director of parks and rec, sign the $75,000 contract with Green Play.
The ninny council refuses to reprimand city manager Gus Vina for not bring these contracts out publicly on a council agenda.
Mayor "up-zoning" Gaspar, Deputy Mayor "give me a $6000 free trip" Kranz, and the other three councilpersons seem united to hide the hired consultants.
I see a lot of references to "free trip" on this blog, and tried to google it in various ways and see no articles on this. I would like to understand more. Could someone provide a link? My preference is for a credible news source. However, I understand that sometimes news initially emanates from non-standard sources.
ReplyDeleteThis is what they are talking about.
Deleteprojectinterchange.org/?p=7385
http://jewishinsandiego.blogspot.com/2013/07/federation-sends-san-diego-local.html
I have no idea if there is overlap in leadership or financial interests between the Jewish Federation, and the Leichtag Foundation, who Kranz helped by changing the zoning rules so they could have non-agricultural general office use on agriculture-zoned land.
If anyone would like to research the connections if any, I will post the findings.
Thanks....I understand now.
Delete10:31- This is straight from Tony Kranz's Facebook Page. The trip was actually $5100.00.
ReplyDeleteTony Kranz uploaded a new video.
July 18 ·
This is video I took about this time last year, when I was on a trip to Israel as part of Project Interchange. We were on a hill with a view of the Gaza Strip, where this chime was built by a woman in honor of her son, who was killed in a helicopter crash during military training. The chimes sound so peaceful.
The situation in Israel right now is tragic. What 99.9% of the people there want—whether they are Palestinians or Jews—is peace, to be able to live without worrying whether a bomb is going to land on their head, or if someone on the bus is going to blow themselves up. I don't know if the leaders on both sides of the conflict will ever be able to find their way to a solution that makes peace possible, but that's what I continue to pray for: Shalom.
Project Interchange is a Jewish Organization that invited about 300 "leaders" from across the country to go over to Israel. Gaspar was also invited, but turned it down. You can decided what you think on your own.
Adding to the above, Tony did file the appropriate forms as it was a gift and had to be declared. Since that time, he has voted to do a bit of up zoning not he Leichtag property. This seems to be where the conflict of interest may lie.
DeleteShould have said "on the Leichtag property".
Delete10:42
DeleteUp zoning?
Not true.
Deputy Mayor "give me a $6000 free trip" Kranz didn't read the fine print on the check. It was not paid for by the Project Exchange.
DeleteThe money came from the Jewish Federation of San Diego County -
Look up their news letter of Friday, July 26, 2013 where they talk about the Federation Sends San Diego Local Officials Delegation (prominent San Diego-area officials) to Israel.
The visit, funded by the Jewish Community Relations Council of the Jewish Federation of San Diego County, and not tax payers, includes meetings with influential figures across Israel’s political and social spectrum, including senior Israeli, Palestinian and Israeli Arab figures.
By the way, Kranz's FPPC form 700 shows $5,400 not $5,100. So now Kranz is lying on his facebook?
Right, but what you're claiming is there a quid pro quo between a Jewish foundation that is not the Leichtag Foundation and Tony's vote for the Leichtag Foundation.
DeleteYou would have to establish the direct connection between the two to prove the quid pro quo (And WC may do just that). For me it's pretty unstable ground when you're saying a trip from one Jewish group equals favors for another because they're both Jewish.
He declared the trip, and other officials like Aguilera of Vista also went, so until we see common board members or accounts or something, I'm not buying it...
Better yet for comparison, let's see all the trips of this type ALL Encinitas council people have taken in the last 20 years..
Delete11:11- So it would seem. It definitely says Project Exchange on his FB page, which I believe anyone can go to. Maybe none of you are FB fans, but you can get a lot of information about all of your city officials, including planning commissioner, Ruben Flores, who says he is a government official. You don't have to have a FB page, just Google it.
DeleteLet's see. Tony is not a leader in any way, shape or form. He is friends with Jim Farley, over at Leichtag. he is Catholic, so I doubt if it was a religious trip. What does that leave us? Why was Tony selected? Gaspar turned it down, and I'm not a Gaspar fan. I don't know, perhaps it's just a coincidence?
Delete"Gaspar was also invited, but turned it down. You can decided what you think on your own."
DeleteI think Gaspar didn't subsequently vote to change the definition of agricultural zoning!
Gaspar also has three young kids. I would have to say that Tony would have been better off not taking this trip.
DeleteIt's kind of a sad choice between he and Gaspar, but Gaspar is such an empty shell of a pol, I'd rather take the opportunity to dump her now, tony will come up in two years and we'll have our chances then.
3:48 Yes, I agree. DUMP GASPAR THIS TIME or we are stuck with this bimbo for two more years. She has a brain the size of a pea and a mouth as big as a watermelon.
DeletePlease, I can't take her for two more years.
endorsed by Alice Jacobson and the Seaside Courier. They also endorsed Lurch....
Delete3:48 PM
DeleteKranz did a bad thing taking that free trip.
Vote for Cameron.
..and put Gaspar in office....
DeleteTony "give me a $6000 free trip" Kranz and Kirstin "give me up-zoning and more bars" Gaspar may be spending most of their time explaining campaign violations. Move over Dalager.
Delete10:47 AM
ReplyDeleteYes, Mayor Kristin "up-zoning" Gaspar. Didn't you get the April 8th letter advertising Councilwoman Gaspar who will answer questions concerning the City and private-property-rights and the impending strategic planning special meeting?
You didn't know about the "Encinitas Up-Zoning Can Mean Increased Property Values" meeting with Councilwoman Gaspar?
God forbid anyone make a profit in Calpersitas!
DeleteGod forbid that Mike Andreen doesn't make a profit with Mayor Kristin "give me up-zoning and more bars" Gaspar.
DeleteSheila Cameron for mayor and Graboi for councilperson.
Delete10:47 AM
ReplyDeleteMayor Kristin "give me up-zoning and bars" Gaspar. The most notorious of the downtown bar scene, Union bar, donated to her election.
I was there last night. Julie walked in 10 minutes late, interrupted the meeting by demanding business cards of the consultants, spouted off about some park in Tennessee, and then raised a concern about the ECP being used by Encinitas residents (good) even though we weren't talking about the ECP at the time (bad).
ReplyDeleteShe came in with an agenda and made a fool of herself (in my opinion) to the few of us residents who were there. She lost my vote.
11:41- Ask Marco. He is a big Union Bar fan and has come out in support of Catherine. Not sure about Gaspar.
ReplyDelete11:49- Julie demanded? Was this thing filmed. I would like to see that.
ReplyDeleteI will say this, you have to have decorum and respect for everyone's work and opinion. I was not there, and so I can't really comment on what Julie did, but you have to work with the people that are there.
ReplyDeleteThat's my one big issue with this board and the world in general, and that's the lack of civility. I'm all for raising good questions, even really pointed tough questions, but you have to keep a lid on the hostile behavior.
I hope it didn't go down like 11:49 said. Eech....
11:05, you say: "By making the engagement repeatable, you can improve the methods, quality, efficiency and effectiveness over time."
ReplyDeleteBe that as it may, written protocols should have been provided to Julie Graboi when she requested them. If there is to be validity of verifiable results, then quality, efficiency and effectiveness should be documented through scientific protocol, not marketing slogans and a know-it-all attitude.
Julie Graboi raises some very good points about the City's relying on outside consultants to do the work. For the amount of money these firms are being paid, they should tailor each workplan, each methodology to the unique needs of the client. But more than that, we should have people on staff who can create surveys for the City and can step up to the plate to run the city without needing both an inside communications director and outside marketing massagers, to manipulate public perception.
Thanks, Julie. The Parks and Recreation Commission could and should have been employed to solicit public input and come up with its own "template," or "boilerplate."
In my area of consulting (not municipal), written protocols would only be shared with the client executive sponsor (the person paying the bill), and only if required, and only under Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA). They would get a physical copy to read in the presence of our staff, but they cannot have a copy. Methods and tools are proprietary intellectual property that must be protected from competitors. Also, we're not in the business of giving our years of experience away to a client who could try to replicate it for their own internal use. They would never be shared with engagement contributors.
DeleteEver.
As to survey sampling, not every problem needs the cost and time required to reach standards of scientific validity. This isn't testing drug safety, it's local park fees. Sometimes good enough is good enough.
11:49 Why don't you just admit that you don't like Julie Graboi instead of making up nonsense about how rude she was, stopping a meeting, and demanding business cards? We all know that Julie is not like that at all. We have seen her presence at council meetings and she has NEVER been rude or interrupted a meeting.
ReplyDeleteYour words stink and I smell them all the way over to the ocean.
Julie has my vote along with many others who will be voting for her.
I'm 11:49. I stand by what i wrote.
DeleteI was leaning toward Julie because of what has been written about her on this blog even though i don't know her. I may still vote for her (everyone is allowed a bad day). I wasn't going to write about it until i saw her email posted here.
Ask her yourself about her behavior.
And to be clear, Julie was not disruptive for the entire meeting, it was just at the beginning after showing up late and then bringing up the ECP as if that's what the meeting was about (and indirectly it may very well be, but that's not what we were talking about at the time).
DeleteI wasn't at her table during the break out session so i can't comment about that, and that was the majority of the meeting.
I'm willing to reconsider and give her a pass. But it was my first impression of her and it wasn't favorable.
12:44 a yeah, right...you were going to vote for her. Riiiiiiight.
DeleteI ditto what 1:47 posted.
Delete11:49 again. Believe what you want. And i may still vote for her, its not like we have a lot of better options.
DeleteThis is one of the more honest posts lately. We don't have that many options, that's the way I feel about my vote for Tony...
DeleteGaspar is the one you should be worried about since we all know her bar friends are putting money into her campaign.
ReplyDeleteCan we say, have a free drink Gaspar and screw the downtown people? We don't care if they sleep at night. We just want to party and have fun.
12:28 PM
ReplyDeleteTony "give me a $6000 free trip" Kranz also screwed the downtown people. Kranz voted to "put the Deemed Approved Ordinance" on the shelf. In other words he voted no to controlling the out of control bar patrons drawn to the Encinitas "Pacific Beach" style of governing.
Julie generally arrives late with a written speech tells every one how stupid they are and leaves early as if she doesn't care what anyone else thinks or has to say.Doesn't play well with others?
ReplyDelete12:45 Does Julie actually verbalize to every one how stupid they are? I have been attending and watching these council meetings for a long time. Not ONE TIME have I ever heard Julie Graboi tell someone they were stupid.
DeleteSounds like you are the "stupid" one for making such a ridiculous statement with no basis in fact.
12:45 Do you have specifics, dates and times?
ReplyDeleteEvery city council meeting that I have been To recently Julie has made her little speech at oral communications and than she turn and walks out,can't be bothered to listen to anything else only her on voice !!!!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteHello 1:27
DeleteThank you for sharing.
Did you see Julie recently ask the council to process the community input representing hundreds of hours of citizen participation in the General Plan Update? I did. Julie had taken the time to read the citizen feedback and even take photos of the boxes that Gaspar, Kranz and the council were letting sit unprocessed in the basement.
You might find it interesting to know we taxpayers paid over $1 million for yet another consultant to process that resident input, and sadly it was not included.
I attended those city workshops and put in about 6 hours answering survey questions- were mine one of the ones not counted, how about others who went, was their input processed?
I thank Julie for taking the time to research this issue, document the facts, and present a solution to represent residents.
As I say, she walks the walks.
Andrew Audet
EVERY meeting? She usually outlasts all of us, so I don't know where you sit. Last time she spoke she had a presentation to give to a group and took the time to hustle down to city hall and speak (as usual) on behalf of residents, more than I suspect you do, 1:27. She then left for her other event.
DeleteMany people speak in Oral Communications and then leave. The council cannot discuss at length in response to any speaker because it's not an Agenda Item. It would be a Brown Act violation.
DeleteWhat's the point of staying around if the other items on the agenda are of no interest? To listen to Lisa Shaffer's endless palaver? I've seen the council chambers almost empty out after the first action item on the agenda. I've certainly seen Julie Graboi stay at council meetings longer than I have. Bless her heart.
Yup, let's be fair, most people leave after they speak at oral communications or their agenda item is heard. These meetings can be long, and if you get up at 5am like some of us, you only have so much time...
DeleteTips for Andrew:
DeleteThere's no basement at either city hall or the Alamo.
Julie walks the walk.
Evelyn Wood might help you get through survey questions faster.
I attended one of the workshops for 2½ hours of tedious discussion. I was disappointed with how the session was run. It was announced as a "Fee Study," yet we told by the consultants not to discuss fees. What??
ReplyDeleteI complained to the consultants that we were being asked to make very subjective judgments and then quantify them on a scale of 1 to 5. An impossible task considering the categories we were given to work with were a mishmash of activities thrown into single categories. Two shouldn't have even been included for consideration. Before the staff member sat down at my table I told the others that fees were really what we were talking about and should keep that in mind.
I was told today by a city employee that the city is losing $1 million a year by not raising fees and that it will be a minimum of $800,000 per year just for the maintenance of the Hall property park. Yet the consultant wouldn't let us have an honest discussion to deal with the budget shortfall. I thought the whole experience was $75,000 wasted on the consultant Green Play.
I agree with what Julie Graboi wrote. I can't speak to her behavior at another session, but the rude behavior described by others is not at all like I've seen her behave on many other occasions.
Oops, left out "were" in first paragraph, third line, after "we."
DeleteGood ole $tock$ and his band of merry followers who just had to have this Hall property. Now look what we are stuck with - increasing debt on this purchase to maintain it and all of the other important things like road repairs are falling by the wayside.
DeleteNice job idiot $tock$. Is this the way you run your business and your household? Maybe so, since you drive around in a little "toy" car.
I cannot help but wonder why the Parks and Rec. Commission was not involved with this? Anyone know if they are. Aren't they supposed to be our link to the City?
DeleteNot directly involved. I met one person at the workshop that I attended who was on the Parks and Rec Commission. This person participated the same way I did. I suspect the city was focused on getting the desired result, and the commission might have interfered with that.
DeleteWhy does the city needed a highly paid parks and rec director and a highly paid parks and rec supervisor?
ReplyDeleteSomebody has to keep an eye on the Parks and Rec consultants!
DeleteThe City has a Parks and Recreation Commission that has some pretty intelligent folks on it. However, they are never utilized, even when they offer.
DeleteAs a former member of the Parks and Rec. Commission I noticed that after Lisa Rudloff was hired, we were given nothing to do except but together some sort of plan. The only thing the Parks and Rec. Commission, no matter who was head of Parks and Rec., was allowed to do on the new park was to get citizens to suggest a name. And, at the Council meeting where I presented about 10 good names, from 175 citizens (without Peak Democracy) the Council did not accept any off them Jim Bond wanted Encinitas Community Park, Jerome seconded it and they all agreed. I don't exactly remember when this was but Lisa was not yet director. It may have been Chris Hazeltine. When Lisa took over, the Commission was not consulted on anything and if we tried to take any direction, it was shot down. Because of her, 2 of us left the Commission. I learned a lot during my 6 years on the "inside" if you will, and it was clear when Vina came, along with Lisa, it was a new ballgame. Don't underestimate these people. Lorri
ReplyDeleteAargh, not again.
DeleteIt IS a community park because of the facilities it offers: skate park, dog park, open space, walkways, and athletic fields. But it is not technically a community park because it is too big. The name does not have to meet the technical classification.
There are parks in several other communities called ___ Community Park. For example, Pt. Loma Community Park, Aviara Community Park, Mira Mesa Community Park. Pretty standard stuff.
Except that the name violates our General Plan because of the size and also its primary use, which is sport fields. It's a special use park by definition in the Recreational Element of our General Plan. The naming was an attempt to make it sound like what is isn't.
Delete"violates"? Give me a break.
Delete11:29 you tell them, we don't need no stinking rules or general plan, we do what suits us !!!!!!! upzone,upzone, upzone!
DeleteLet's call it Aztech Appliance Stadium - maybe they might like to "buy" naming rights, nudge, nudge, wink, wink
Delete10:40
DeleteThe name meets none of the criteria of a community park by any definition of the city, park and recreation, planning or the general plan.
It is specifically planned to be and is a special use park.
Please, aarg, show any definition anywhere that defines a community park. Even the entire community did not offer that name option. Stocks and Bond wanted the name and the majority of the community who fought for a community park lost.
3:28pm yeah, right. the name of the park is directly related to upzoning. if it is in your little world, you have problems.
Delete4:06pm - "the name meets". huh? the name is the name. It is designed as a special use park on a technicality (it's too big!) and not some grand regional agenda.
4:16
DeleteWhat you are saying is not true.
It's named ECP, but it was designed,defined and is aSPECIAL USE PARK and the EIR, general plan and ALL references, other than what Stocks and friends dictated, specifically say that. Not just the size issue.
Arrgggg.
4:32
DeleteYou are not listening. They all say that because of the technicality that it is too big and thus must be classified per the general plan as a special use park. They were consistent with abiding by that technicality.
The park elements make it essentially a community park but it cannot be classified that because it is too big. There is nothing that says the name must abide by the technicality, so it is names essentially what it is, Encinitas Community Park.
You can argue that because there is no teen center or because there is no ball court, that it no longer is a community park. But i would argue that because it has a skate park and a dog park, and meandering walkways and open space, that it is.
Www.encinitascommunitypark.blogspot.com
DeleteTake out the parking, driveways and walkways around the sports fields and you have 83% sports fields. It is a special use park.
A rose by any other name is still a rose.
83%. BS.
DeleteIt is 5 athletic fields in 44 acres. The soccer field and the two half-fields are approximately 1.5 acres each, and the multi-use fields are approximately 2 acres. A total of approximately 9 acres.
Math by any other name is still math.
Your math is correct.
DeleteI do t think that is what 2:17 presented.
If you take out the area of parking, roads, buffer zones the very nice walkways with dry creek beds around the sports fields, you have the skate park, the adjacent dog park, play area graded area where the aquatic center isn't and the five sport field, you have 83% of it sports fields. That's why it's a special use park. No tennis, basketball, teen center, ampatheatre, gardens or other amenities that define a community and that the community wanted. The city states it can call it a community because it has these amenitities when it does not.
You can call it Encinitas Community Park.
$200k? You must be kidding.
ReplyDeleteThat's actually the low end of the range. $200K - $600K. We do very good work, with many repeat clients. We're helping large enterprise clients stay competetive with more nimble upstarts.
DeleteIn 2012, Rudloff's salary as parks and rec director was $160,447.
ReplyDeleteThat is pathetic. For a parks and rec director. its should be down in the low $100,000s with no benefits.
ReplyDeleteFire Vina.