Art wrote on Jul 16, 2008 1:08 AM:200 employees means you'll need 200 parking spaces, plus another 50 spaces to park city vehicles, plus another 200 spaces for public parking -- this project will need 450 parking spaces! How much parking will be available at this facility?

JDub wrote on Jul 16, 2008 6:01 AM:Chuck Rabel is right. People don't seem to be that interested and it's too bad. But, that's what the City of Vista wants. The fact that the city was bringing final plans and budget to a vote was a surprise to me. Apparently there are no hearing requirements for a project of this magnitude and the city isn't about to reach out to the public voluntarily.
And, I would consider incompetent anyone who couldn't come closer than 30% on "rough estimates". If a contractor said that a remodel would cost $40,000 and then presented a bill for $55,000, there would be some harsh words said and probably a lawsuit.
But that's the City of Vista. Bottom line is that the city really doesn't care what you and I think. It doesn't want people showing up to comment, testify, etc. and wouldn't feel any obligation to take action anyway.
Mr. Rabel commented on a "done deal" and it's too bad because now tax payers will be stuck paying for a Taj Majal with proceeds from a tax based on a shaky retail tax base (remember, these are the people who think Sonic is good economic development).

Vista Grandpa wrote on Jul 16, 2008 7:39 AM:Boy that $60 million plus spent for nice City Employee and City Council Chambers could sure be used to improve the City many other needs....It looks like the City Govenment is tapping the citizens to create a cushy place to cruise through their day on the way to retirement.

Vista Resident wrote on Jul 16, 2008 7:44 AM:Too funny. The Mayor and City Manager on focused on a fancy City Hall and ignoring the needs of the community. Seems like it should be the opposite. Vista will become even a bigger ghetto.

they left a few details out... wrote on Jul 16, 2008 7:58 AM:"...city officials hope to build with money from a 2006 voter-approved sales tax increase."

What the article didn't mention was: The sales-tax measure failed to pass in one election when the city HONESTLY presented the proposal to the city voters.

Then, to finally get the sales-tax measure passed, they had to hire an outside PR firm to blanket the voters of Vista with flyers in the months heading up to the election.

Those flyers, inexplicably, tied the sales tax measure to public safety via the public's fear of fire. They played on then-recent fire concerns to shove the sales tax measure down voter's throats. Hell, after reading the flyers i was scared. I think one of them showed a charred body.

Taking a page from Bush et al, they played the voters of Vista and got their too-expensive, dishonestly gained measure passed. Karl Rove and Edward bernays would have been proud.

I'd like to get upset about the matter but as citizens, we get the slimey, dishonest politicans we deserve. I wish all my fellow voters would think about the issues MORE CAREFULLY. So now Vista, one of the poorest communities in SD county, has one of its highest sales taxes. Let's remember the oft-forgotten details come elction time.

whoa wrote on Jul 16, 2008 8:04 AM:if 40 million was approved, 40 million and 1 cent was not. this thing is an eyesore when you look around the rest of Vista, either build a trashy dump to fit in with the city or clean up the city. This is appalling. This is not financial responsibility.

waste wrote on Jul 16, 2008 8:14 AM:Just think. A new building, wow! Great way to spend tax payers money Vista. I guess the City will operate much better with new offices to sit in. I have lived in vista since 1962. The city has done nothing but botch plans and wasted money on unneeded changes. The down project was and is a sad joke. The city streets are in poor shape along with many other things. I have been to several city meetings and they always complain about budget woes. They don't even cut down trees that are a public hazard and when they do they only do half the job. The City of Vista is a JOKE!!! It is the slum of North County. What a shame. It was such a nice small well run town years ago. Poor, poor management is the cause!

Karl wrote on Jul 16, 2008 8:31 AM:Ah come on Gramps you grumpy old fart. Just because you and I had to work our fannies off for 40 years putting in 60 to 70 hours a week to retire semi comfy doesn't mean that the slackers in local Gov. don't deserve what they get. I do have to clarify that there are many municipal workers who do work hard and deserve a "decent" retirement. The problem I see is that their retiremnts now are real sweetheart deals made off of the sweat of our labor.

Before anyone rags on me for this one consider this. I have very intimate knowledge of most retirement systems that end in "ers". I have 2 friends who recently retired. One from the SDPD and he is making 3% more in retirement than when he was working. I have another friend who recently retired from upper management in one of our north county cities and he is knocking down 160k a year in retirement. One is 59 and the other is 58. On top of that, my wife has worked for several local city governments and will retire in 6 years at age 55 at approx. 75k a year. How does that song go? I wish, I knew then, what I know now, when I was younger. What a scam on our taxpayer dollars.

I have been raising Cain about this with letters, phone calls and emails with every rep I have from local to Federal to Social Security Admin. since 1993 when I first did a joint tax return with my wife and discovered this scam. to date, not one single response, not one.

Former Vista Resident wrote on Jul 16, 2008 8:54 AM:What makes you think Vista should not have nice public offices for its employees and its citizens to use? Does working and meeting in old, inadequate facilities lead to better decision making?

Artsyrat wrote on Jul 16, 2008 10:31 AM:I am looking forward to voting in November 2008 and 2010! Out with 'em!! I am very sorry I did not attend the CC meeting last night. I had a 'pet emergency' and could not. Of course the city council would schedule this special meeting during a time when they usually have off. This city council is border line corrupt in their dealing with the citizens of Vista. Any chance the city council can avoid genuine community involvement they do it with excellence. They don't really care about the citizens of the north and central part of Vista, and it shows in the decision making. Vote 'em out!

I do not support this new building project...it is too expensive!!!!

notasurprise wrote on Jul 16, 2008 12:31 PM:Vista never focuses on what needs fixing. This is typical of the shady business dealings in our city council. Spend money on something that really isn't needed. Good job, gang. Let's charge MORE in taxes for our new building despite the economic crisis. Oh, and let's not worry about the horrible state some of our roads are in or the horrible state a few of our communities are in. What a joke.

Vista Resident wrote on Jul 16, 2008 12:32 PM:I think the new city hall looks nice. The only thing I'll miss are the tennis courts.

I remember being incensed that the City of Vista gave away the Vista Village land to developers. But, I've changed my mind since now we have the really fun and beautiful Vista Village.

P.S. The above post named Vista Resident wasn't me.

P.P.S. Disclosure - I live nearby and it might help my property value to build something so beautiful there. But, Judy Ritter is probably right -- something a little more modest might have fit in better with the neighborhood.

Shocked wrote on Jul 16, 2008 3:33 PM:$51.4 MILLION just for office buildings and a community hall!!! What staggering excess in a time when businesses are closing, people are losing their jobs, home prices are devalued and the cost of everything from gas to food is rising and rising. Hasn't the city of Vista been laying off workers and refusing to fund new positions? This city hall looks like a palace. Scale the place down to something reasonable. The gravy train is over! The days of McMansions for the middle class are over. Building public facilities on a grand scale needs to stop. Even the schools that have been built in the past few years have been way over-board and I'm tired of being asked to pay for this kind of waste.

Kendog wrote on Jul 16, 2008 3:41 PM:Sparse attendancee...perhaps one reason is that the notice in the NCTimes did not indicate that this was an open meeting, nor was a time given. From the appearance of the article, I believed it to be a closed meeting. This is irresponible reporting at its worst, and this project is a fiasco. I urge readers to flood city hall with cards, calls, emails, letters, and let our displeasure be made known.

Jonas wrote on Jul 16, 2008 6:10 PM:Nice buliding. I can picture all the graffiti it will have within a week of being bulid.

Resident wrote on Jul 16, 2008 8:08 PM:No graffiti on City Hall. The City will have 10 deputies watching precious city hall while the other parts of town suffer.

Belongs in the Business Park wrote on Jul 17, 2008 11:56 AM:The rendering of the new over priced city hall reminds me of a standard corporate tilt-up building in a business park not a civic center. Vista planners need to rethink this. This building does not fit in the local surroundings. And the price! I've worked in construction for many years. Right now, there are many starving contractors out there that can build what's needed at a much lower price. But then again, we are dealing with a city council that doesn't care much about what we think or how much of our money they spend.

JDub wrote on Jul 17, 2008 9:09 PM:There have been some interesting comments made here the last couple of days. It's too bad that no one at Vista City hall will give enough of a rat's behind to read them or pay attention to them.
The economy sucks, retail receipts and sales tax revenues in Vista are down (according to the City. Now isn't the time to go more than 30% over the original "projections" on a City Hall (also bearing in mind that there's a probability that the $50 million plus will go up even higher between now and the issuance of contracts and commencement of construction). The City has gone this many years muddling along in its present facility and something less than what's been proposed but decidedly more than what we have now is in order.
Unfortunately, my work requires 80% travel or else I would become very active in community organizing in Vista. I managed to attend a public meeting last year on updates to the City's master plan, signing up for mailing lists, updates, etc. Nothing has ever been e-mailed to me and there's been no word on the status of that activity in months and months--we'll probably hear when it's a done deal and too late to respond (as is typical in Vista).
Two things I'd like to see happen--1)turn out all the elected officials in Vista--replace them with people who are responsive and who care. 2) change the structure of Vista's government to a weak mayor and council members who represent and reside in defined, apportioned wards or districts. And then, let's move on from there with both accountability and transparency.

Artsyrat wrote on Jul 19, 2008 8:53 AM:Judy Ritter said in this article, Despite the council's unanimous vote, Councilwoman Judy Ritter said she wasn't crazy about the modern architectural style.

"I wanted a softer, more historical look," Ritter said.

Why would she then vote for it? That doesn't make sense unless of course she's either intimidated or made a puppet of by our honorable Mayor Vance.

Show some gutts Judy Ritter, Vista needs YOUR opinion not what you think Vance would want.

Concrete Contractor wrote on Jul 22, 2008 3:13 PM:The city could cut out about 500,000 in the site concrete alone. If they didnt specify LITHOCRETE OR HANDSEEDED AGGREGATE This project is way over designed.

One Flush wrote on Jul 31, 2008 11:20 PM:In 2006 Vista voters approved Prop L promising a new $40 million city hall (adjusted for inflation).

After Vista paid $300,000 for a special election in JUN 2007, Prop C passed making it a charter city. Prop C allowed the use of non-union labor to cut the cost of the $40M city hall. During the Prop C campaign City Attorney Darold Pieper argued that prevailing wage rates are essentially "Beverly Hills wage rates" forced on a "middle-class and blue-collar community. Many people make a fine living in construction without union wages," Pieper said.

However, on JUL 15, 2008 one day after notifying the public of its emergency meeting, Vista city leaders met and approved a $55M city hall. Wait just a darn minute, a cost saving was the promise of Prop C but a cost overrun of $15 million was delivered. Which one should be torn up first, the new city charter or the lavish “Beverly Hills” city hall plans?

Prop L also approved $15 million for sports fields and $5 million (and growing) for Moonlight Amphitheater renovations. Will these be abandoned to absorb the overrun? The good news is that there is a comparable building design that could rescue both projects by saving taxpayers more than $20 million.

The $55.5M cost for Vista’s new city hall pencils out to $550.00 per sq. ft. (100K sq. ft. bldg.). A comparable building located at 255 Pico Ave. in San Marcos was completed two years ago for $303.00 per sq. ft. – the North County Regional Education Center/San Marcos Unified School District building). That would be $30.3M for Vista’s city hall.

Using the San Marcos building cost per sq. ft. Vista’s total cost SAVINGS could be $250 per sq. ft. or $25,000,000.

Saving that much taxpayer money will make us proud that Vista’s city leaders can make Prop L and Prop C campaign promises and be trusted to keep them – how exciting is a 2 for 1 good news story like that? Whoo hoo!