Newly elected Cathy Schlicht was sworn in and took her seat on the City Council last night. She immediately challenged the sitting members about city finances, lifetime medical benefits for council members, and public disclosure of a traffic study.
Before the Council adopted the audited financial report for 2007-2008, Schlicht criticized the council’s past spending patterns which left the City with an $11.8 million deficit between revenues and expenditures last year. During the discussion City Treasurer Irwin Bornstein confirmed that MV’s discretionary non-allocated reserves have dwindled to about $5 million.
Schlicht also moved to eliminate the lifetime medical benefits which three councilmembers elected to bestow upon themselves recently. Trish Kelley, Lance MacLean and Frank Ury could potentially qualify for the benefit, which is valued at approximately $257,000 by an actuarial audit. Those three members defeated Schlicht’s motion, which had been seconded by JP Ledesma.
Schlicht promoted her agenda for government transparency by requesting public release of a traffic study commissioned a year ago. She complained Transportation Manager Shirley Land has failed to invite consultant Scott Ritchie to present a final study to the Planning Commission or City Council on the feasibility of roundabout intersections. After having Ritchie present an introduction to a subcommittee on the subject nearly eight months ago, Land has been sitting on the feasibilty studies for three Marguerite intersections at Trabuco, LaPaz, and Oso.
Schlicht requested a presentation by Ritchie to a joint meeting of the Planning Commission and City Council to save costs and expedite consideration of the report. A motion by Mayor Kelley was approved limiting the future presentation to the Planning Commission, signaling resistance by the Council majority. Ledesma stated, “I am not open-minded [on roundabouts].” MacLean and Ury chimed in opposing the roundabout concept for MV, even though Schlicht was only requesting public disclosure of the expert’s report.
The interest in modern roundabouts (not ‘traffic circles’) was summarized in a public comment last night by resident Simon Hartigan:
I would like to just list the major advantages of modern roundabouts when compared to traffic light intersections:
Safety: According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety as well as other studies, modern roundabouts compared to traffic signals and stop controlled intersections have reduced all accidents by 40%, injury accidents by 80% and fatal accidents by 90%. These facts alone are the #1 reason why we should be considering roundabouts at all of our intersections.
In addition to public safety, the capacity and efficiency of our roadway increases up to 50% with modern roundabouts. To quote the Arizona Department of Transportation, “In MOST situations, a modern roundabout can handler higher traffic volumes with less delay than traffic signals.”
Money: In addition to saving money by reducing traffic accidents and public travel time, Modern roundabouts don’t need wider roads or expensive synchronized traffic light systems, which require costly annual maintenance of up to 20,000 per year. Our 2 lane roads are not causing the back-up, it’s our intersections being controlled by traffic signals! If we built roundabouts we would not need to widen the entire road , our maintenance costs would be extremely low, and we would save additional thousands of dollars to the public in reduced injury accidents, travel time, energy consumption, and cost of fuel. In 2007, UPS reduced the company’s gas consumption by 3.8 million gallons of fuel (over 10 Million Dollars in one year) by simply changing their routes to require right turns only (no left turns). Our bridge on La Paz would not need to be widened nor traffic lights modified for widening if we can install roundabouts. Between this and the related systems and power usage to run them, we would likely save millions & millions of taxpayer dollars.
Businesses: Roundabouts are preferred when there are driveways near an intersection. Speeds are low coming into and out of the roundabout. Drivers are encouraged to enter or exit a driveway to frequent adjacent businesses . On the other hand, traffic lights (especially with high-speed synchronization) encourage drivers to pass businesses or cause blocking of driveways with a line of cars stopped for red lights. For this very reason, businesses have been known to demand the installation of a modern roundabouts instead of traffic lights.
Aesthetics: Roundabouts require less pavement to move the same amount of cars through our city. Roundabouts preserve green space, improve the character of our community, and provide opportunities for Mission Viejo to create a better environment for the public. One of my favorite ideas after speaking with Bette Lindsay of the Heritage Committee is planting a Live Oak (our city tree) at the center of a future roundabout right here in front of city hall at La Paz and Marguerite. Roundabouts would cleanse our city of the red-yellow-green light pollution and metal poles traffic lights require.
Many studies have been done and all evidence points to roundabouts as the preferred intersection control device. I urge everyone here tonight and the City to please consider modern roundabouts for our community for improved safety, capacity, aesthetics, business, and lower costs to the public wherever feasible.
Go Cathy Go!!! Some “fresh air” in the council chambers!!
Sounds like time for recall…we sure can’t afford what is going on!
With respect to the Health Insurance issue, isn’t there a law somewhere, requiring elected officials to recuse themselves when voting on an issue that will directly benefit them?
This is as blatant a misuse of a public trust as I have seen.
Cheers to Cathy Schlicht for requesting release of the traffic study that was already completed. There is no reason to conduct studies if we don’t make them available to the public. Government is supposed to lead, even if it requires change from the way we do things. I would hope that I never would say that I’m close minded in my business to things that have even the remotest chance of being successful.
I also applaud Schlicht for trying to save Mission Viejo from the same failed system of the federal government. Our congressmen have more lifetime benefits than the unions that are driving the Automotive Bigs out of business. If Congress were a business they would have been out of business decades ago. Mission Viejo doesn’t need to follow that pattern of failure, let’s listen to Schlicht and throw out this idea of lifetime medical benefits.
Congrats to Cathy!!! I’m glad to see that she’s at least working to challenge the main powers that be. She’s got a long and hard road ahead of her. I hope that she will be able to endure and succeed at her goals. It’s time for change in Mission Viejo.
Those who voted for Ury on Nov. 4 should have watched the meeting as their punishment, especially the item about lifetime healthcare benefits. I was stunned at the statements made first by City Attorney Bill Curley and then Ury. When it comes to finance, do they know the difference between being a whiz and taking a whiz? Curley said the cost would only be “tens of thousands,” not $257K as stated two weeks ago – talk about a shell game!
Cathy is off to a great start, and she led the discussions. I was in awe. She had both Kelley and Ury flustered by presenting facts and logic.
A number of things thing were obvious from last nights council meeting.
Both MacLean and Ury showed little conscience in giving themselves lifetime health benefits for a temporary part-time position as council members.
Ledesma’s lack of knowledge and inquisitiveness on modern roundabouts is frightening.
One clarification to this article; as I understood the vote, Kelley made the motion to approve a presentation of Ritchie’s report to the Planning & Transportation Department- by the city staff; WITHOUT Ritchie’s direct presence to answer questions or clarify. This is a shame, but at least it addresses the issue of open government.
Kudos to Cathy! You outshine them all.
For your genuine honesty and integrity, you will come to earn the respect of both councilmembers & city staff. You have already earned the confidence and respect of the people.
Congratulations, Cathy! You are a shining star of truthfullness, facts, reality and persistence. You have BarBara and my prayers and encouragement to continue this fight for open, transparent and fiscally conservative government for Mission Viejo citizens.
Thank you for bursting the bubble around this present council. Maybe this will finally bring them into the reality of our suffering economic times. The present majority are more interested in their egoes, pay and benefits than they are of the deficit spending that they have allowed to happen.
Bravo, Bravo. Keep on keeping on. We are with you all the way.
According to a call to Scott Ritchie at the end of last week he has to date not received payment by the city for the study he delivered almost a year ago. Also, according to Mr. Ritchie, the contract the city agreed to included two visits to Mission Viejo. Therefore, he would visit Mission Viejo at no additional charge to discuss his findings. The question therefore needs to be asked why staff has failed to pay the consultant for services rendered almost an entire year ago. The question also needs to be asked why staff has been sitting on the study and a concerned suspicion rises that staff just might have an agenda that is not in the interest of our City’s public.
And while Mayor Kelly must be lauded for acting prudently and directing staff to quit stalling and allowing the consultant to finalize the documents, it is a shame that she did so with the stipulation that staff bring the study to the Planning and Transportation Commission without giving Mr. Ritchie a chance to answer questions that will naturely be asked and deserve an informed answer. To bring it to the Commission without providing Mr. Ritchie the same courtesy the Council permitted the rebranding consultants. But then they were recommending ideas that had originated in the Council no matter how hairbrained they were. Our traffic director has proven by her comments and actions that she is not up to speed on the subject of modern roundabouts (she still confuses them with traditional traffic circles) and is therefore unqualified to provide adequate, fully informed and complete answers to the questions the public and the commission will surely have with regards to this study.
Councilmember Ledesma’s statements to this item on last night’s agenda were outright embarrassing. He was actually proud of and admitted to “being closed-minded”. What is he so afraid of? He completely ignored the facts that were presented to him in favor of the preconceived notion (aka prejudice) he had in his mind. It is appalling that a member of our Council would admit to not being inclined to discharge of his sworn duties properly and judging a race horse by his colors rather than by his speed. He should be ashamed of himself! He ridiculed modern roundabouts as too costly because of eminent domain to the citizens of our city Without having read the study or having made the study available to the public for debate. Aside from that this constitutes gross negligence, he has shown himself as a prejudiced, closed-minded person that gives poor representation to the citizens of Mission Viejo. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Roundabouts are generally a LOT less costly than the road widenings that have been pursued by staff. What is true is that by giving modern roundabouts appropriate consideration, the Council and staff should properly investigate this solution for the intersections that are coming up for improvement because they are a lot less costly not just to install but also to run and maintain. If they are afraid that someone may ask why they didn’t investigate the option before, I would respond that I would be quite happy and would congratulate them for doing it properly now before we dump more money down the traffic light / road widening drain.
Finally, I wish to congratulate Cathy on her election and also for a really, really good first council meeting. She asked the right questions and I look forward to seeing her continue her quest for better transparency and accountability of our city government and administration. I know I’m not the only one who will try her best to help Cathy accomplish this goal.
But unmentioned so far, was Lance MacLean’s FARCICAL question, “is Scott Ritchie engaged in a conflict of interest?”
First of all, for what?? presenting a report as an expert in modern roundabouts?
Secondly, apparently the ATS conflict of interest did not bother Lance when ATS was contributing to the campaigns of council members.
Doesn’t Lance remember? That’s the conflict of interest in which the city made a $200,000 contract to John Gates and Tony Ingegneri to write a Wireless Master Plan which increases their incentives to market cell towers, including in MV parks & rec centers.
Lance & his cronies also authorized ATS to present a proposal for then RE-SELLING these leases. For their recommended proposal, they agreed to pay ATS first $500,000 and then $200,000……to sell off PUBLIC assets at a loss of millions.
Lance is a walking Conflict of Interest.
I, for one, would like to see an illustration of what the intersections at La Paz and Chrisanta, and LaPaz and Muirlands would look like. Mission Viejo Company designed the La Paz/Chrisanta intersection to give it our “hometown” look. I have driven on roundabouts, and I personally do not care for them, but understand the need for good traffic flow. But I also want to see our now “city” keep it’s hometown feeling.
Just a thought to look at changes from all angles. They already ruined the coming of Christmas by moving Santa to City Hall – the flavor of Christmas has changed thanks to an arrogant council who has no respect for it’s constituents.
Not sure I like the idea of adding roundabouts. I never like driving through them. There’s one in Orange that I hate..and I don’t like the ones they have in Ladera Ranch.
I have driven through large ones in busy traffic in European countries, and they seem like insanity to me. I don’t see how most American drivers would be able to handle them unless traffic was always very light.
For those who are still confused, no one has proposed we build the traffic circles of the past such as the one in Orange or the large ones some speak of. The ones being proposed are named “modern roundabouts” and I would like to challenge you to find an instance where they didn’t work and then look for examples of them working and based, on that research let me know if you’re still opposed to them.
There is no evidence of drivers (anywhere) do not understand how to drive roundabouts – and nothing but evidence on how they work right away no matter where it is in the world.
99% of the people opposed to roundabouts don’t even know what they are. Google it. Based on my experience, 80% or more of those initial 99% have not much of a rebuttal after I spend about 5 minutes educating them.
Look it up before giving your opinion. Everything that I said in the above article is true and can be verified by sources. The only thing you’ll find on the internet about “roundabouts don’t work” is in opinion pieces that have no sources and no valid reason why they wouldn’t work.
Why is it that nobody questions traffic lights the same way they question roundabouts? I can find countless problems with traffic lights such as: inefficiency, dangerous (stop and go traffic and encourages drivers to race at high speeds through intersections), requires wide roads because of inefficiency, ugly concrete jungles with metal poles (hardly what I would call small town), distracts drivers from the real world and instead has them focus only on red and green lights, difficult right turns at red as the angle is severe and drivers often cruise right through the cross walk to be able to see something, drivers needing to wait very long just for one person or driver to cross the street, because of the high speeds and super wide road pedestrians are discouraged and are constantly exposing themselves to risk as cars are traveling 50mph extremely close to them…
I recommend that all those who may have experienced older versions of roundabouts and traffic circles or do not feel comfortable with roundabouts come to the Planning Commission Meeting where hopefully, Scott Ritchie will discuss his reports including pictures, overlays, and perhaps video clips of other working roundabouts. I don’t believe traffic engineers would be in the business of designing or recommending roundabouts if they weren’t the cost effective, modern traffic solutions that we are looking for. I recently drove a wonderful, new neighborhood roundabout in Henderson, Nevada that works like a charm. I now sit restlessly at signals thinking how much sooner I might arrive at my destination had there been a roundabout in place.