AAC Email 10-10-23 Regarding Paying Twice for Turf

 10-10-23

Hello AAC,

I have wondered for a long time about who is paying for sod replacement on the executive golf courses that are not part of a renovation. . 

The sod replacement is an unnecessary expense.  We pay for a maintenance contract (Millions).  The maintenance contract will provide beautiful grass to play golf on.  The maintenance contractors choose to not follow the Contract resulting in grass failure.  The Contract says the contractor needs to fix their failures at their own expense.  

Now if the District (VCCDD) pays for fixing the contractor's failure, then we the residents are paying twice.  Why should we pay twice?

On Thursday September 28, I was playing golf at Chula Vista.  Only two of my pictures showed new sod on the golf course.  Actually there was a lot of new sod.  This had to be the reason Chula Vista was closed for a month this summer.  If you would like to see any of these pictures just visit my Google Blog at executivegolfmaintenance.blogspot.com. 

Mitch made the decision that numerous areas of the Chula Vista did not meet the Contract objective of having a "healthy and attractive appearance".

I was hoping Mitch had Down to Earth install and pay for the sod since they are the contractor that failed to produce an attractive healthy appearance.

The Contract has a section called "Satisfactory Performance".  ( available to read below ) 

I wanted to find out who paid for the sod so I sent an information request to Jennifer Farlow who is the Clerk of the VCCDD.  I asked Jennifer for a copy of an invoice for sod replacement at Chula Vista this summer which would only be available if the VCCDD paid for it.  Jennifer sent me the invoice that I have attached to the email.  

The invoice is for 5000 units of grass costing $4,995.00 and Mitch hired another contractor, ASG to provide and install the sod.  

Mitch decided that Down to Earth is not "negligent" in their ability to grow grass. Mitch must have evidence that Down to Earth removed the compaction of the soil, they adjusted the PH of the soil, they added organic material, they used fertilizers and they watered.  And all of these efforts failed to grow grass.

Actually Down to Earth does none of the above mentioned processes effectively to grow grass and that is why the grass doesn't grow. 

Instead of confronting Down to Earth, Mitch turns to the Residential Pot of Gold (The Amenity Fund).  Who is going to notice?  So much easier!

Some people accept the poor golf course conditions by saying there are millions of rounds of golf played each year. I guess this justifies letting Down to Earth out of their contractual obligations. The reality is that in February only 83% of the available tee times were used on average.  In July it drops to only 55% of the available tee times.  This high traffic argument just does not work.  Most of the messed up turf is not in high traffic areas.  Sure, some of the bad turf is by a cart path, but that is a small percentage of the total mess.  

The reality is Down to Earth received their monthly payments from the District for the contracted work.  Since they didn't perform all of the work, they were able to increase their profits.  Finally, the residents pay TWICE to fix Down to Earth's unacceptable work.

$5,000 is a small amount so why should residents be concerned?  Well, it repeats itself over and over again.

What do you think it cost to replace a green at Heron and one at Pelican?  Big Bucks for sure.

Does the Amenity Authority Committee have any say in what Mitch is spending amenity funds on?

Satisfactory Performance

It is estimated that the frequency and guidelines set forth in this Exhibit will provide the quality desired.  However, in the event it does not, Supplier agrees to provide such reasonable additional services without further compensation.  Satisfactory performance of work under this Agreement shall be based on these maintenance specifications, as measured by the Owner in its discretion.

The determination of satisfactory performance will be based upon the satisfactory appearance of the grounds, not whether anticipated projections of cycle frequencies have been performed.  The appearance and quality of the grounds will be reviewed on a periodic basis by the Owner.  Supplier performance will be evaluated and adjustments to the technical maintenance specifications, if required, will be made.

It is recognized that at times, the development of new areas will damage or deter the maintaining of existing area.  Seasonal weather differences may cause some variation in vegetation growth characteristics and that different stages during the care cycle may vary from the desired appearance.

Any plant, tree, grass or shrub that dies due to Supplier negligence shall be replaced by the Supplier, except in instances involving acts of God, theft, vandalism or the negligence of others, in which case the plants may be replaced at the Owners direction at no additional cost to the Supplier.

Any damage to walls, landscape, lighting or hardscape features by the Supplier shall be repaired by the respective tradesmen initiated though the District Representative so all warranties remain effective.  All billing for said repairs will be directed to the Supplier responsible for said area and cost of repairs.