Tracking Durham's capital bond projects: You wanted your new park when?

At the last City Council work session, Durham's elected city officials received an update from the Capital Program Advisory Committee (CPAC), the citizen's group established on the eve of the 2005 general obligation bond issue to review and report on the status of capital projects and to provide recommendations to Council on how projects are proceeding.

The need for such a group was unsurprising, given the challenges the City faced in actually closing out a number of capital projects from the 1996 GO bonds a decade earlier.

The summary report issued by CPAC this quarter gently chides the City for two issues that are of no surprise to local government watchers: the low limit on purchasing authority that the City Manager has, and problems with the City's development review process. The first issue has come before Council several times, though what I've deemed the progressive wing of Council pulled the question this fall to keep body newcomer Farad Ali out of the firing line so early in his term. Put bluntly, the current limits present a "Mother May I" challenge to city administrators, who have to bring purchases and decisions of a fairly low dollar-value forward to the City Council for approval.

(Of course, this limit has its political benefits, too, which is likely why it exists. In Monday's Council meeting, a $121,000 contract with Time Warner for RoadRunner business Internet service was postponed to Thursday's work session while the administration continues to duel with TWC over the fate of church programming on community access TV. The RoadRunner contract amount is higher than Baker's current $100,000 spending limit but below the proposed new $150,000 threshold. But I digress.)

The second recommendation touches on an issue that was the subject of a good piece in the local papers last week: namely, the fact that the development review process is, by the account of private-sector and non-profit developers as well as outside consultants, badly broken and too extended in length. Expect the recommendations of a consultant hired to examine Durham's development process to attract significant discussions in the weeks and months to come.

The CPAC bottom line? Well, the good news is that capital projects are largely on track -- as measured as a percentage of total capital expenditures, projects representing 86.7% of capital spending ($436.5 million) are currently showing a "green light" status. One-tenth of that is comprised of the Durham Performing Arts Center alone.

The bad news? An additional 13.4% of capital projects in dollar denominations are yellow- or red-lighted on this report.

The worst news, though, seems to be the uneven nature of where these projects sit in the various categories of capital projects. Let's just say that the pain isn't evenly shared.

General Services projects, which include new municipal facilities, the City Hall renovations, solid waste facilities, and so forth, are almost all showing a green-light status, save for a cemeteries upgrade and a city-wide facilities assessment.

Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization? $17.7 million authorized, $11.4 million spent or encumbered. All projects show a green status; many are completed or are in the midst of new-housing unit occupancy or sale. Rolling Hills, fresh off an infusion of funding, is gearing up for a development plan by new national players.

Transportation? Except for known issues like the shortfall on the NC 147 pedestrian bridge, and the apparent recalcitrance of the railroad to offer the Duke Beltline to the City as a future trail at a reasonable price -- well on track, with two-thirds of its $100 million in capital projects in the expenditures/encumbrance category.

Stormwater projects? IT? Water? Wastewater? All the same -- all on track.

So what's behind?

Downtown Revitalization projects also are feeling the pain, but some of that is well-explained; the Durham Centre parking deck is red-lighted, for example, but that's explained by the City's ongoing work with Craig Davis Properties for a new approach to the management and responsibility for the deck. Ditto the Corcoran St. deck, which is on hold so that all the staff's energy can be focused on the damaged E. Chapel Hill St. deck. Also logical.

Public Protection projects are also red-lit more often that one would like to see, but that seems to stem mostly from the resignation of a staff project manager and, in one case, a suitable fire station site not being so suitable.

The prize for most-challenged capital projects, unfortunately (but not that surprisingly), goes to cultural and recreation projects. Only $26.1 million out of $76.9 million in authorized funds have been spent or encumbered. Out of 49 projects, just two have been completed, and just four are out to bid.

A staggering 31 projects sit in the design phase, many of them red-lighted. The reasons why sound eerily similar to, well, each other--

• "This project was put on hold for approximately 3 months because a Staff Project Manager resigned. In August it was reassigned. Final scoping and cost estimating has taken severalmonths longer than originally anticipated."
• "Due to extended contract negotiations, extended site/building analysis phase and a change in the Architect's project manager, this project is running 7 m 34 weeks behind schedule; the architect has alerted staff to a desire to reassign their contract responsibilities to a new
• architect which is further delaying project progress…."
• "The draft BODR [Basis of Design Report] was submitted for review in July. Still in review."
• "Five moth project delay due to delays contracting with CMAR, delays contracting for geotechnical investigations; additional delays realized in bringing the project within budget prior to bidding."
• "Due to delays on the part of the design consultant, this project is running ten weeks behind schedule."
• "Late realization of site plan constraints required that the project be redesigned and resubmitted for site plan approval; new submittal requirements have extended the review process; the project is about 15 months behind schedule."

Not to mention my personal favorite, the status of the Walltown Rec Center and Pool, helmed by a politically-connected consultant who was chosen over the staff's recommendation:

"Although the Architect contends that Construction documents will be completed by the January 2008 deadline; staff anticipates they will be late since Site Plan approval in not yet secure [sic]; required street closings are not yet secured; and the plans have not been submitted to [Public Works] for review and approval, a process that can easily take 90 days or more."

I could go on and on -- but you get the point. Is this due to Durham's slow development review process? Did the Bull City bite off more than it could chew in trying to revitalize so many parks, greenways and community centers in a single issue -- doubtlessly promised to all segments of the community in part to win support for the 2005 GO bonds? Is something not working well in this part of the City in particular?

Whatever the cause, a whopping 60% of cultural and recreation projects are at yellow or red status (as measured by project count, not dollars.)

Which comes as no surprise to park and trail users, I suspect, or probably to Council either.

After all, Durham's recent customer satisfaction survey found that only 50% of residents were satisfied with city parks, 45% with rec centers, and 35% with swimming pools. (Trails and greenways were the "big winners" here with 54%.)

I suspect a number of citizens are waiting for the park and rec improvements promised in the 2005 bonds. From the sounds of the latest CPAC report, I expect many of those citizens will be waiting a mite bit longer.

Comments

[barry]

Didn't see that coming.

[Dave W.]

Hopefully at the upcoming "coffee with council" meetings the city council will hear from scores of people tired of a lack of quality recreation centers, athletic and cultural facilities, greenways, etc. (and the clear indicators like Kevin provides here that things are not improving).

Durham most certainly does not get much for its tax dollar on this front.

Part of the problem may be the increased privatization of our society and what we expect from govt. A large and growing percentage of society expects to fill many recreational and cultural needs by paying to join a gym or other private organization — which clearly is going to increase society segregating based on income levels; those who can afford to pay extra to join gyms and clubs, and those who can’t and are stuck using a deteriorating city facility (if they are lucky enough to be near a functioning one).

Smaller tangential thought... I would think there may well be a link between Durham's apparently high percentage of youths involved in gangs and the lack of adequate facilities for healthier/more productive activities.

I tend to be (overly/hopelessly?) idealistic and think that cultural centers, rec centers, and athletic facilities would be opportunities for different groups of society to interact with each other on a spontaneous, casual level. I wonder if a growing percentage of the population actually prefers the privatization model and the lack of spontaneous interaction with different groups.

I think this evolving change in how much of society expects to meet recreational needs over the past few decades is what causes city rec centers, parks, etc., and other things to be such a low priority within city govt.

It isn’t something the council hears the connected, upper middle class (which has signficantly more power in local govt.) clamor for very often (and thus may get less focus on than other issues).

I realize this parks and rec area is only part of Kevin’s reporting thread and hope this ramble fits in this context. I hope we figure out how to dramatically improve the parks and rec facilities around here and get the most from our bond dollars. We shouldn't have to pay consultants to figure out how to get more bang for our buck.

[city administrator]

Just a correction -- the City Manager currently is authorized to contract up to $30,000 -- not $100,000 as you noted in your post.

[barry]

$30,000 probably buys a year's worth of note pads and paper clips for the city. No wonder Patrick wants to be the attorney and not the manager.

Getting back to Parks and Rec, about 6 years ago i moved back into Duke Park neighborhood from a few years in Watts Hospital-Hillandale. I noticed a small triangle of land at the corner of Avondale, Alcott and Markham, that would be a perfect place for a small pocket park. Houses on and east of Avondale have a higher percentage of renters, with lots of small children who need a place to play. It's a long walk across two very busy streets (Avondale and Roxboro) to get to the state of the art playground at Duke Park, and to be honest, if i had a couple or three toddlers and had to push a stroller i wouldn't do it very often. It's not a safe block to walk if you're pushing a stroller and trying to keep track of a 4 year old or two.

I tried to navigate through the parks department to see who i needed to talk to to get a project like that rolling. After all, in addition to Oval Park and Indian Trail Park, WH-H has two more pocket parks in walking distance, and accessible without having to cross any busy thoroughfares, for just about every resident of that neighborhood. I was told that a new pocket park like that was too small for DPR to get involved in, but if i wanted to pursue it, either as an individual or as part of the Neighborhood Association, i was free to do so. They might even be able to help me figure out who to write a grant proposal to. And oh, yeah, ongoing maintenance would be our responsibility too.

There was, and perhaps still is, a certain mindset among the decision making segment of city government, that projects have to big, flashy, and award winning to be pursued. We saw this throughout the entire Duke Park "renovation" project, which was funded from the 96 bond issue and took over 8 years to "complete." (I'll discuss why the word "renovation" and "complete" are in quotes in private conversation with anyone who wishes). Attention to detail and serving the needs of the community were much lower down on the priority list than award winning design and eye catching features. Of course, as it often turns out, those eye catching features turn out to be budget busters, and end up not being built anyway.

Kids need age appropriate places to play. They need to be close to their homes and safe to go to. There needs to be lots of them in the city. Once that baseline level of service is established, then more organized and featured centers for older kids and adults can be added into the mix. Unfortunately, little kids don't vote, and in many cases, neither do their parents, especially in parts of the city with high rental populations and large turnover among residents. But figuring out what the needs of the community are, and meeting them, should be a higher priority than winning awards, if you ask me.

[Kevin Davis]

City Administrator: Thanks for the note. I think that we're actually both right; it looks like Baker can "make, approve, award and execute contracts up to $100,000 for the purchase of apparatus, supplies, materials and equipment, and contracts for construction and repair work." However, Baker only has "authority to approve contracts for services that are routine or operational up to the amount of $30,000 provided that sufficient funds are available at the time of the award. Service contracts above $30,000 must be approved by the City Council."

More info at http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:Tgn-imOX-YQJ:www.ci.durham.nc.us/agendas/2007/cws20071217/111391_4595_145904.doc.PDF+durham+city+manager+purchasing+authority&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

Good catch though -- I missed the service contract bit the first time through.

Dave W.: That is a fascinating theory and is something I want to think through more. I suspect you may be on to something here.

[P.O.d Dermite]

So what happened to our money?

I used to be frustrated, but now I'm starting to get used to waiting four years for the busted sidewalks in my neighborhood to be replaced, waiting three years for bike racks to be installed where 'the city' said they'd be. I guess I should be happy that half of the park in front of my house is being fixed up, I mean we all need to be optimistic, right? The glass is half-full!! So I'll keep riding my bike around the ever-growing potholes... half-measures are better than no-measures, I guess.