 |
|||||
| In a previous blog entry I stated that the
city
should fund the Children's Playground improvements that
it has planned. The movement towards a playground re-design came at the
request of members
of the Chico Mother's Club, who felt the park was becoming unusable. Some
bad press related to finding a syringe in the playground bark helped move
the process forward. My personal experience at that play area was that
it was becoming a constant target of vandalism and a hangout for partyers
and transients. I quit taking my child there because of that. There had been at least one other attempt to raise private money and improve the area, but that group fell apart and was not able to raise any funds to accomplish the project. I believe the current play structures were paid for by a local service organization. Some readers felt that the money being spent on this project would be better spent elsewhere, and that the improvements were more a facade change than the dramatic improvements required to elicit change (I'm putting words in their mouths here, and they can correct me if necessary). So I emailed the General Services Director and asked him how the council adopted recommendations were to be implemented and funded. The response I received is below. There's no mention of a funding mechanism for "phase 2" of the project. In the city's list of capital projects this one is funded to $275,000, which would probably only implement the design on the table. It can be assumed that items identified as future improvements probably won't happen with today's budget problems, unless paid for by private or grant funding. There's a couple of things regarding this project to keep in mind. Beardsley has been directed to plan the project based on recommendations described below, and it the same time limiting the project to the dollar amount budgeted. That's not an easy job, and trade-offs are made based on those requirements. Another thing is that this project is well into it's planning stage with regards to public input, but it's not complete or approved. People with recommendations for changes can still communicate concerns to Beardsley and/or the Bidwell Park and Playground Commission. Dennis Beardsley's responses are in bold. My email request is in blue. I've added a couple of comments in bracketed italics for clarification. The rest of the text below are the minutes from an Internal Affairs Committee meeting from April last year. I didn't modify any of the response, including not fixing typos. |
|||||
| Lon – the following are responses
to each point. Responses are in bold. Your original e-mail is included
in
its entirety. Dennis 9-7-07 -------------------------------------------- [blue text is the body of my email request for information] In May 2006 the Council unanimously supported the recommendations of the Internal Affairs committee for improved policing of Children’s Playground. The items approved are listed below. It appears as though some components of those recommendations may have been moved to phase 2 of the project (improved lighting?). I was also unable to find cameras or panic buttons as described in item P of the council agenda (item 16 below) in the current design. I support the improvements you are working on for Children’s Playground and spoke in support of them last May at the Council Meeting. Can anybody give me an indication when and how the items below are going to be accomplished, how they are budgeted, and if they are in Phase 2 when that phase will begin and with what funding? What is the anticipated final budget? I’ve had a couple of good questions on my blog on this topic, and I think it would be worthwhile to describe to the public that reads it how the policies that were adopted are going to be executed. If possible I would like to post your responses specific to the implementation of these policies to my blog as well. Thanks, Lon Glazner [in my email I attached the minutes for 4-12-06 meeting Internal Affairs Committee (Herbert, Schwab, Holcombe). The council unanimously adopted these measures at its May 2006 meeting. General Services Director responded to each point in bold below] COMMITTEE MATTERS REQUIRING COUNCIL ACTION A. Review and Consideration of Policies Pertaining to Management of Children’s Playground, Ringel Park, and City Plaza. The Committee discussed the possible development of a policy addressing safety concerns for Children’s Playground, Ringel Park and City Plaza, including types of uses available for children, uses that might detract from family uses, signs, lighting and other items. The Chief of Police and General Services Director recommended that consideration be given to establishing a curfew for Children’s Playground and establishing a no loitering area within 50 feet of the restrooms at Ringel Park and City Plaza. Nicole Jones and Ed McLaughlin addressed the Committee on this issue. Monya Jameson, Recreation Superintendent, Chico Area Recreation District (CARD) noted that CARD has many programs they could transfer to Children’s Park, for example; summer camps, intramural drop-in sports programs, and sports camps. The only areas of concern would be restroom facilities and parking. Staff suggested CARD partner with the University for restrooms facilities. Staff indicated that a cost analysis had been done on the Police Department recommendations and many of the designs were low cost, adding there is capital project money available in the budget to fund these renovations. Response: Many of the recommendations are little to no cost and are being pursued. However, GSD (General Services Department) is seeking ways to accomplish all items both with the funding that has been allocated, donations and potential service projects. Chair Herbert made a motion to accept the recommendations provided in the Police Department’s “Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design evaluation” which includes: (1) Post proper signs at all entrances to Park. Increase frequency of signs and size. Response: new signage is included in the project presented to the Bidwell Park and Playground Commission. Exactly what that signage will be and where has not been determined. Additional “No Smoking” signs have been added. (2) Install partitions on benches to prevent sleeping. Response: All new benches will have partitions. (3) Prune all trees and tree type shrubs to 7' to the first branch. Prune all bushes 12" from ground and no higher than 36". Response: GSD continues to prune trees and shrubbery to improve site lines. (4) Utilize more frequent placement of lighting and change to halide type lighting in order to identify faces at 25'. Response: Moving light poles that are in the proposed project are in the budget. In addition, GSD will be changing existing light fixtures through either the capital project under consideration or the operation and maintenance budget. GSD has not, as of this writing, changed fixtures and tested the 25’ criteria. However, we are confident that the improved lighting, which was upgraded in the early 1990s, will be a significant improvement over what no available. (5) On the east side of Presbyterian Church - Install motion sensor lights and/or halide type lighting. Also prune the Juniper trees to 7'. Response: Staff will be discussing this and other items with Church representatives. (6) Remodel the playground equipment to a style that allows for natural surveillance. Increase lighting to halide type in order to clearly identify faces at 25'. Response: The primary focus of the current scope of work is on providing a quality and diverse play area that will be attractive, safe and appeal to a wide age group. Related improvements such as lighting, picnic tables, landscaping and benches are part of the scope. Natural surveillance is an important component of the design criteria. (7) Install skate stop devices on all curbs. Response: Where necessary, skate stoppers will be installed outside the proposed capital project. Future improvements will be designed so as not to attract this activity. (8) Install halide type lights to prevent sleeping at night and for identification purposes. Install sitting partitions to prevent sleeping. Install surveillance cameras to monitor activity. Increase patrol during the high school lunch time and other high crime times of the day or night. Response: Lighting and bench changes addressed earlier. Based on proposals to install cameras at other locations, whether or not to install surveillance cameras at this location has not been resolved. Sufficient personnel in the Police Department to monitor cameras, legal requirements to keep recorded images and sufficient quality of images that can be used for prosecution have not been resolved. The Police Department and GSD continue to coordinate surveillance and patrol with available resources. (9) Prune all bushes 12" from the ground and to a height no greater than 36" along the creek bank. Response: This an on-going requirement that can be achieved based on available resources. Work continues in this area. (10) Install bollards from creek bank to creek alongside the bridge to maintain proper access control. Response: One of the projects identified during the recent public input was re-designing the pathway and flow patterns in the vicinity of the foot bridge. The metal structure intended to discourage bicycles needs to be replaced and path alignment changed. Access control would be part of the work which may be a candidate for a service organization or future capital project allocation. (11) Increase lighting on bridge between Bidwell Mansion and Children’s Playground. Response: Improved lighting would be consideration with future improvements for this area. (12) Provide adequate maintenance to all areas of the park. Response: The park is maintained daily and can be adjusted as needed. Additional costs for the proposed improvements are under consideration. (13) Install halide lighting on the northeast creek bank, prune all shrubs to 36" in height and 12" up from ground level. Install low barrier type fencing to properly define public space. Response: Related to above comments regarding general improvements. (14) East end of Physical Science Building - Install barrier plants, high fencing, etc. to reinforce this as being nonpublic space. Response: This item will be the agenda in discussing potential modifications with the University. That meeting has not been scheduled. (15) South side of Physical Science Building - Install unclimbable 10' fence and increase the intensity of corner light as well as the lighting pattern. Response: This item will be on the agenda in discussing potential modifications with the University. That meeting has not been scheduled. (16) Northwest entrance from University - Increase lighting and install panic duress button and surveillance cameras. Response: This item will be the agenda in discussing potential modifications with the University. Taking down the walls to the amphitheater was discussed, but not recommended at this time. Chair Herbert amended his motion to include a 10:00 p.m. to sunrise curfew for Children’s Playground. Councilmember Holcombe seconded the motion. Response: One of the most significant decisions made to date has been establishing closing times for Children’s Playground and other locations. Children’s Playground is now closed to the public, except for moving through the area, from 12 Midnight to 5:00 a.m. The Chief of Police will be making a report on the new policy in late 2008. Other options mentioned to improve the area were: (1) adoption of the “Park Project” by Chico High School; and (2) installation of a bike path near the Bidwell Park bridge. Response: GSD is continuously looking for projects to involve the public. Current discussions have identified some possibilities and staff will be working with Chico High School students and faculty to encourage participation in improving Children’s Playground later this year and into 2008. Chair Herbert made a motion to forward a recommendation to the Council to direct the City Attorney’s Office and the Police Department to work on an ordinance to supplement the state loitering law to allow the City to protect the entrance ways and path ways to all public restrooms. Councilmember Schwab seconded the motion. Response: The park closings have been approved and will be evaluated to determine if any further changes in policy are needed. Recommendation: The Committee accepted (3-0) the recommendations as provided by the Police Department and the 10:00 p.m. to sunrise curfew for Children’s Park. The Committee also directed staff (3-0) to work on an ordinance to supplement the state loitering law to allow the City to protect the entrance ways and path ways to all public restrooms. Lon, I hope the above helps explain the status of enhancements and proposed improvements to Children’s Playground. If there is anything else, please let me know. Dennis Beardsley |
|||||
  CI Challenge: Can you guess what it is? Winner: Everyone but Gregg, but mostly Mark Sorensen, see comments below for answer, see photo to the left for Bert and Ernie. |
You've Got Questions, I've Got Answers... Sort of
13 Comments
Leave a comment
Lon
About Me: Fasten your seatbelts for an exhilarating trip through Chico's public policy; I guarantee it's marginally better than public access TV.
|
CI Challenge: that would be Bert of Bert & Ernie fame.
They're kinda like Mark & Brian but for a bit of a different age demographic...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bert_and_Ernie
Earnie!
CI Challenge: Bert from Sesame Street. . .
Cool, a CI challenge not dealing with airplanes or automobiles!
It's Bert, of Sesame Street fame.
Ah, I miss those days...
Lon,
Re: CI Challenge; That's Bert's Muppet hair line.
Everyone,
Gregg's right it's Ernie!!!!
Of course I'm kidding it is Bert.
You can't blame Gregg for being different. He grew up in the sticks of New Mexico, and his PBS station couldn't afford both Bert and Ernie, so they only hired the latter. No Mr. Snuffleupagus either.
And for Tempra I'll be doing nothing but flying cars for the CI challenge in the coming weeks.
Lon
Dang! You're right Lon, we didn't get PBS or Sesame St. in Moriarity, NM, but we got The Mickey Mouse Club and Captain Kangaroo!
Only someone from Estancia would know that.
Lon,
Was there any answer to funding, timing or scope of Phase II?
Am I incorrectly assuming that because something is named phase I that there is also a phase II component to it? If that is not the case, why is it phased at all?
In your original post last week, you linked to a design drawing and project docs. When I look at sheet 4 that is called "phase one estimated cost", I see "Items not included" at the bottom. I assume those are pulled out of Phase 1 budget analysis because they may be added if there is funding available after, and if, the project survives the public bid process, or they will be moved to Phase 2 should the construction bids come in higher than expected. Either way they are ranked as a low priority for this project. Lighting is one of those additive alternates, and so are benches, trash cans and picnic tables. I am guessing that the rest of the items without dollar amounts are not under consideration at all or automatically moved to the mysterious phase 2.
It might be more fair to blog on this project after the bids come in and we know for sure what stays and what goes. But, of course, that will probably be too late to make a difference.
I agree that it is a tough budget for Dennis too. Just like the designer, his job is held back by the budget. I know Dennis is good at doing his job. I hope I am not sounding negative towards him. Both of them are constricted by the budget.
When you worked on the Nico Project, weren't you surprised at the cost of playground equipment even before it is in the ground? and a lot of the Nico Project work was donated and not prevailing wage. Did you ever calc how much the Nico Project would have cost if the city had done it? Was there lighting included in the Nico Project?
Maybe it would be an interesting blog to see how many RDA projects actually came within 10% of their original budgets.
"More frequent lighting" (issue#4) is different request than "moving lighting", but I think that at the time, we didn't think much about the fact that new "more frequent" lighting is not as simple as it may sound and I'm sure there is a good and economical strategy behind "moving" it.
Additional lighting is very likely going to need an upgrade of the main panel and wiring as well, and I don't even want to know the prevailing wage rates (required by RDA) for an electrical contractor. Lighting may be the most important improvement to make at that park, but unfortunately, if you do it right, it is probably the most expensive too. Lighting design has made significant changes in the last 15 years, from when it was last done at that park and with 2 electrical code changes during that time also, I bet we could come close to blowing the entire budget on lighting. And would that make the Mothers of Childrens Park feel better? Maybe a little , but probably, mostly not.
I appreciate that now, we need to have an improvement that is obvious to the public and immediately gratifying. Infrastructure like lighting doesn't always do that, (unless you spend a lot more money on it and make it a bigger feature). Playground equipment is a lot easier to manage and used during the day by the kids, and can be seen from a block away as people drive by. That aspect can't be overlooked, just like the mothers that took it upon themselves to take back the park deserve to be appeased. Maybe their cause is worth more than $275k and more important to the surrounding areas than we are giving it. Not to mention the original question of whether or not we doing something about the vandalism and drug problem with the new design. Are we simply buying them off with "easy come, easy go" RDA money? They came to the council complaining about drugs and we gave them more play equipment.
We also have improvements that merge into other funding sources (RDA, capital projects, maint.) and mingled with other city departments (police, public works, parks, etc). And, as Dennis has already brought to light, we will also have new upkeep responsibilities now too. It scares me that important design features may get split up in different departments and different programs, and risk being dropped off the radar screen or buried under new requests by new mothers from different places. Just because something is in the Scope of Work, doesn't mean it is going to happen.
It is too bad that when we were assigning priority to RDA projects, we thought this amount would take us farther than it is. I get the feeling that what started out with such good intentions, is turning out to be a token (and temporary) gesture. I am desperate for its conclusion.
Still, it would be nice if we could make a more obvious, visual connection between the downtown retail center and the Mansion and new museum through that park, but maybe that need will become more obvious when the museum is built and more pedestrians hopefully see the new signage at the bridge. Dennis is conscious of the pruning for visibility needs and maybe that will move up the list of "priority" status and take on a larger area than it is currently maintaining. That is probably the most inexpensive and best improvement we can make right now, but we just need to make sure they can handle the extra work and we need to make sure they appreciate how much improvement it will make to user safety and comfort levels.
A Downtown Vision Plan that showed the relationships between Downtown features and services would be a good reference tool to be using right now.
My cell phone is my security camera and it doesn't cost the city a dime. Getting more visibility in and around that park and more people using it, is going to be a lot cheaper and go a lot further than security cameras. That would require more people routinely using that space and I don't think they are going to use it at all unless they feel safe there. I doubt if more play equipment and concrete curbs are going to be enough to make them feel safe enough to use it at the times we need them to.
TJ,
You’ve forced me to meet my writing quota for the day. Here are a few points I’d like to make in response to your comments.
Was there any answer to funding, timing or scope of Phase II? Am I incorrectly assuming that because something is named phase I that there is also a phase II component to it? If that is not the case, why is it phased at all?
In looking at the capital projects list there is no phase II. The city has budgeted $275,000 for this project and it is supposed to incorporate the recommendations adopted by Council last May. I suspect Phase II are things they’d like to do, or even things they were supposed to do, but can’t because of the budget.
Looking at Beardsley’s responses I think he’s trying to achieve the Council adopted recommendations as part of phase I. I don't think phase II exists, and you'll note he didn't answer my questions about it.
It might be more fair to blog on this project after the bids come in and we know for sure what stays and what goes. But, of course, that will probably be too late to make a difference.
That’s true. But I don’t think the budget will change, so discussing how that budget is prioritized in relation to the Council approved recommendations is valuable.
When you worked on the Nico Project, weren't you surprised at the cost of playground equipment even before it is in the ground? and a lot of the Nico Project work was donated and not prevailing wage. Did you ever calc how much the Nico Project would have cost if the city had done it? Was there lighting included in the Nico Project?
I was more surprised by the cost of everything surrounding the equipment(like installation). I think if you have a simple design you’re still only going to be able to apply 50% of your budget to equipment and surfacing.
I heard that you told Rashell that the Nico Project could cost close to $250K at prevailing wage. At one point I calculated $180K as a rough estimate. We managed to build the project for $120K with play equipment and surfacing being 90% of our budget. There was no electrical work, and beyond some of the concrete everything was pretty straight forward.
Companies like Guillon Inc. Construction, New Urban Builders, Alpine Landscaping, Northstar Engineering, Link Engineering, and Ed Brown’s Trucking saved us close to $50K on materials and labor. Lots of other people donated time and materials as well.
Maybe it would be an interesting blog to see how many RDA projects actually came within 10% of their original budgets.
When the RDA Citizen’s Committee existed we asked that the city provide ongoing account balances for all capital projects to the public. Historically there has been no way to identify which projects were on hold, over budget, under budget, cancelled, or even how/why they were proposed.
Projects would just pop up on some list. There were several capital project lists, and they would change significantly over short periods of time. There was even $11 million dollars allotted for undefined projects that the city manager could draw from at will.
How did the Children’s Playground get allotted $275K if no design/estimate has been provided until now? That goes to the heart of the city’s park budgeting problems. Some unknown city official, at some unknown point in time, said we could build the project for $250K. Since that time the entire project has been constrained by approximately that amount. It was probably Dennis Beardsley, and the dollar amount was probably based on his experience, and an understanding of what could be approved. But you won’t find that information in the public record.
I appreciate that now, we need to have an improvement that is obvious to the public and immediately gratifying…Are we simply buying them off with "easy come, easy go" RDA money? They came to the council complaining about drugs and we gave them more play equipment.
I think there’s some truth to this. Although I believe there have been ongoing requests to improve this park for kids. The bad press is probably what shook this project loose.
It is too bad that when we were assigning priority to RDA projects, we thought this amount would take us farther than it is. I get the feeling that what started out with such good intentions, is turning out to be a token (and temporary) gesture.
I would point out that the city has never prioritized RDA projects. The RDA committee I was on recommended that they do so, and do it based on defined yet still subjective criteria. We provided an example list of how projects could be prioritized. The City Council said “thanks” then disbanded us. In fact, projects that I would assume to be supported by the general public, such as the Animal Shelter Expansion seem to have been removed entirely from the capital project list. Instead, some fast tracked projects seem to benefit proponents with ties to campaign donor lists. In a small town this is probably unavoidable, and unlikely that it’s quid pro quo, but it certainly raises some eyebrows.
Lon
"Historically there has been no way to identify which projects were on hold, over budget, under budget, cancelled, or even how/why they were proposed."
Is there any way to attach "merit pay" to that request?
Is it too late to go back to blogging about cars and planes?
TJ,
I guess I should clarify that funding and status info on projects could be recieved from the city staff to basic questioning or even California Public Records Act requests. In order to get the right information you need to know what to ask as well as who to ask.
Dennis was nice enough to respond to my questions in a timely manner.
The city has modified its captial projects list to show funding over time (the previous year and some future years). Which is a positive change.
It's never too late to go back to cars and airplanes. That's often more enjoyable and takes less of my time.
Lon
Lon,
Your right. The "merit pay" comment was a cheap shot and a smart-ass comment that didn't need to be said.
I hate it when people do that, and I am guilty of it more than anyone else.
I apologize for typing it.
TJ,
I wasn't responding to your quip about merit pay. I just wanted to qualify my statement about the information not being available on project status and funding.
It's not easily available.
For example, I know that the $250K was proposed for Children's Playground prior to the police recommendations and the current design. Where that estimate came from, and who put it on the capital project list is not known to me. I could find out, but I'm not going to go the extra mile. I just assume it was a funding recommendation that came out of the Park Department.
But it does pre-date the Council adopted requirements.
Lon