Transparency

The Irvine City Council originally had a vision of a metropolitan park that would rival Central Park in New York, Golden Gate Park in San Francisco, and Balboa Park in San Diego but neglected to follow standard industry practices in managing such a large project.

From the outset, with the City of Irvine assuming a land developer role, the project was poorly managed and did not follow conventional program management principles. There was excessive political control, influence, and interference over the Great Park project. The City allowed individuals, including some elected officials to make technical decisions without ensuring that these individuals were qualified or experienced to make such decisions. Basically, the City abandoned sound project management principles. 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris

The organizational structure established by the Irvine City Council was such that total control over the project rested with the City Council and the Orange County Great Park Corporation was relegated to an advisory role.

Many California communities, including Mission Viejo, Belmont, Watsonville, and Norwalk have ordinances restricting elected officials from interfering in operational activities under a city manager.

Appropriate transparency over the project was lacking. The City Council and the OCGPC did not publicly reveal the estimated true costs to build the park as originally designed as well as other non-capital expenditures.

There were serious questions about the ability of the City to implement the original design based on the City’s available financing and U.S. Navy constraints.

Many of the contracts of the Great Park were open-ended and without defined deliverables, minor oversight, or safeguards. There seemingly was no effective oversight over invoices, contract compliance, or quality control.

There seemed to be over-use of no-bid and sole source contracts without full justification which possibly violates the City’s processes and procedures. There are also questions of clarity relative to terms and conditions of current contracts.

Orange County Great Park financial statements indicated that less than 50% of expenses incurred were spent on capital, i.e., on the actual design and construction of the Great Park, which is well outside industry standards. The remaining expenses were on salaries, overhead, and contract services.

The complexity of financial transactions relative to the Great Park made it difficult to understand the flow of funds relative to sources and uses of monies. The lack of clarity on such basic issues as the number of units authorized to be constructed raises concerns about other issues in the contract that are unclear. This was a major flaw in the reporting system.

An inordinate amount of funds were spent on public relations and lobbying, “free” public events, exhibitions, food, and a balloon whose benefits did not justify its costs.

The current plan for the construction of the Great Park will require less funding than the original plan but will still require a high cost of construction and operations and maintenance that will be passed on to home buyers.

There was no explanation by the City Council as to where the tax increment of $43 million received by the IRDA from 2005-2011 was utilized.

The OCGPC has become a “shell” corporation and serves no intrinsic function as members of the Board of Directors are the same as members of the Irvine City Council. 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury