Rigonomics:

If you have followed my columns, you already know that I have very little faith in the Great Park Corporation to develop any semblance of a park, let alone a “Great Park” at the old El Toro Marine base without wasting a couple hundred million dollars in the process.

Well, it seems that I am not the only one who thinks that now. Released earlier this month was a compliance audit of the first contract between the Great Park Corporation and the Great Park Design Studio.

The “not to exceed” $8.5-million contract went over budget by $2 million, and according to what I read in the audit, it seems that there was very little control to ensure that the public got what it was contracted for.

Of the overage, $734,000 was a change order to add the balloon ride. This was not actually for the balloon itself, but for design, coordination, etc. The rest was what I would describe as “you have money left in your reserve; just give it to me.”

The Great Park Design Studio literally put in a request for the remaining $836,182 that was in unallocated reserve because, as they said in their letter, they “performed work . . . well beyond what was originally anticipated,” even though they had no pre-approval from the board, which was required under the contract.

I learned a long time ago in business and politics that if something starts to get confusing, just follow the money.

So let’s see who the players are.

The Great Park Board of Directors is comprised of all five members of the Irvine City Council and four additional directors handpicked by Irvine Councilman and Great Park Chairman Larry Agran.

Their responsibility is to create policy for the development, operation and maintenance of the Great Park.

The Great Park Design Studio is a joint venture of two individuals through their respective companies — Ken Smith of Ken Smith Landscape Architect Inc. and Yehudi Gaffen of Gafcon Inc.

Smith was retained to take the design lead, for which he received $1,834,748.45 for, according to the contract, 40% of his professional time, and Gafcon was retained for design administration, for which he received $3,062,718.70. The contract was completed in a little more than a year.

According to the audit, the description of work performed on invoices submitted by Smith and Gaffen’s respective companies was so “brief, vague and general” as to make it impossible to understand what work was actually performed.

In addition, there was no evidence that time cards from subcontractors had been reviewed by supervisors.

The audit also found that Gaffen’s company, which was paid more than $3 million to administer the project, not only failed to get “proof of insurance” from 15 subcontractors; they themselves did not have insurance that complied with the agreement.

Plus, Smith’s insurance policy had also expired. In order to protect itself, the city of Irvine was forced to pay $600,000 for an “Owners’ Protective Professional Indemnity Insurance Policy.”

So what do Smith and Gaffen get for not complying with their contract? A second contract for $25.9 million to develop the “schematic design” for the Great Park and some construction documents for early phases of construction.

In this new agreement, the board actually makes it easier for Smith and Gaffen to increase the amount of this “not-to-exceed $25,900,000 contract” by — according to the contract — “[being] imaginative and creative in their development concepts . . . which may necessitate additional consultants and increased budgeted time.”

I think that for $25 million, it shouldn’t be too much to ask to already be imaginative and creative — but that’s just me.

More than $100 million has already been spent on this park with not much actual park to show for it.

Most of the money was spent on soft costs such as the contract above.

Mark my words; before this $1.5 billion park is finished, someone is going to go to jail.

JIM RIGHEIMER is a Costa Mesa Planning Commissioner, local business owner and a father of four. He can be reached at jim@rigonomics.com.