Westminster residents urge council to resist Orange County demand to reclaim $1 million for Little Saigon gateway

Westminster residents urged the City Council on Aug. 13 to oppose Orange County’s attempt to reclaim a $1 million allocation intended for a Little Saigon gateway project, saying the funding was lawfully awarded and that the gateway has cultural and economic value to the city.

Several speakers during the oral comments and closed-session comment period described the gateway as a 50-year commemorative project for the Vietnamese American community and said the money would help attract tourists and economic activity. ‘‘This gateway is not just a structure. It’s a symbol of 50 years of Vietnamese American perseverance,’’ Gigi Vo told the council.

Why it matters: The $1 million was originally allocated by the county for a Little Saigon gateway. Public commenters said the county’s demand to reclaim the funds followed the criminal conviction of a former county supervisor who had sponsored the allocation; they argued the legal culpability of the supervisor should not nullify an otherwise valid county grant to the city.

What commenters said: Multiple speakers — including Dao Tran, Monique Nguyen, Nan Nguyen, Strong Nguyen and Andy Nguyen — said the allocation was lawful and should remain with Westminster. Speaker Teng Dang said local leaders had already initiated project design work and urged the city to resist the county’s demand. ‘‘We were overjoyed to hear Orange County had approved $1,000,000 in funding to support the construction of the Little Saigon Gateway,’’ Nan Nguyen said.

City context: Public comments referenced an existing contract that speakers said runs through 2026. At least one commenter, Terry Raines, referenced the criminal conviction of former Supervisor Andrew Do and noted that Mr. Do began a custodial sentence recently; Raines also said the city had already used some of the allocation for preliminary feasibility and design work. City staff and council did not announce a formal decision on the county’s demand during the Aug. 13 meeting; the matter was listed on the closed-session agenda for discussion of ‘‘anticipated litigation’’ and property negotiation items.

Next steps: The city manager’s closed-session notice showed a closed-session item on ‘‘anticipated litigation’’ and an earlier agenda item asking for discussion of the county demand; the council planned to discuss additional closed-session items after the public meeting concluded. Public commenters asked the council to affirm the contract and proceed with the gateway work if legally permissible.

Ending: The debate underscores the political sensitivity around grant funding tied to a now-convicted public official. Residents urged the council to defend the city’s contract rights and the cultural significance of the gateway, and asked the council for clear public updates as the legal and administrative reviews proceed.