Davisite logo
Davisite Banner. Left side the bicycle obelisk at 3rd and University. Right side the trellis at the entrance to the Arboretum.

<

>

Council set to mis-spend $400,000 on Arroyo Park

By Janet and Joe Krovoza

In another instance of the consent calendar shielding requests for large financial commitments, city staff are asking Council Tuesday to approve more than $409K to build a "shade/picnic structure" at Arroyo Park.

When the Recreation and Park Commission voted to recommend its construction back in April of 2022, the estimated cost was $257K. Public bids revealing a far different cost estimate were opened only last month.

Should we really be spending scarce public dollars on this scale on a new "amenity" such as this, especially when people can't even walk their dogs at Arroyo without risking injury to their pets from burrs and thistles ($300 to pull a thorn from my dog's foot), broken irrigation pipes take literally months to repair, and ruptured pathways make it difficult if not impossible for people with mobility issues to get around?

This strikes us as a lot of money for what is basically six picnic tables, two barbecues and a roof. At a minimum, such a major commitment (which will incur ongoing expenses, consume turf, and threaten adjacent trees) certainly deserves the "separate discussion" its inclusion on the consent calendar precludes.

Let's also put this in context. The park already has two shaded open-air group barbecue areas  They are used, but don't seem overly so or impacted. Maybe we could add a few more picnic tables, update the barbecues that were put in 20 years ago, and save ourselves something close to $400K?

In any event, if a cost estimate is 60 percent higher than what was represented to the Recreation and Park Commission, it ought to go back to them for review. And such an item certainly shouldn't go straight to the City Council on consent.

Posted by

davisite2

on

in

, ,
Davisite logo

Did you enjoy reading this article? Then subscribe to the Davisite for free and never miss a post again.

Comments

18 responses to “Council set to mis-spend $400,000 on Arroyo Park”

  1. Donna Lemongello

    To buy a house the cost of the land is included in the price and land is not cheap. so for that $$$ you could build a whole house. How can anyone entertain that outrageous amount of money for a few outdoor amenties. Oh, city council cuz it’s not their money, WASTE, pure waste! And whoever gets paid that for that, obviously corrupt.

    Reply
  2. Nancy Price

    Save most of the money as Janet and Joe make clear should be done. Put the huge savings to a much better and really needed purpose. How about into the street and bike path repair fund?

    Reply
  3. Ron O

    Regarding $400K for a house, I’m wondering if this will actually turn out to be a “house” for homeless people.
    Though truth be told, I don’t know enough about it to determine if it’s a “good idea” for the actual/intended purpose, how long it’s been planned for, how the need was determined, where the funds are coming from, etc.
    This is a park that I’m not familiar with, as I rarely venture into that side of town.
    As an “alternative”, has the city considered a zip line for this park? Those are kind of fun. (Just kidding, and hope that everything turned out o.k. regarding that.)

    Reply
  4. Joe Krovoza

    The Rec and Park Commission (RPC) was concerned and hesitant on this when told it would be approximately $257K for six tables and two BBQ pits. The staff report for approval states: “Due to rising construction costs, all bids for the project were significantly higher than the engineer’s estimate.” “Significantly higher” should cause a no-brainer pause and for the item to be sent back to the RPC.
    The funding sources are a Proposition 68 Grant ($250,000) and Park Impact Fees ($150,000). The Prop 68 funds likely have some restrictions, but should still be wisely allocated for a valued city parks need. The Park Impact Fees are VERY valuable funds in that they can be used for many park purposes. This project isn’t even worth the $150K of the Park Impact Funds that are being ADDED, let alone a big chunk of Prop 68 funding.
    Our parks are a mess and can’t be maintained as it is. The city states there’s a funding shortage — then adds more obligations for maintenance. At Arroyo Park, the “arroyo” feature of rocks in swales is now completely masked by weeds.
    On top of this, there are already two picnic areas in the same area outside the pool that include three tables and three BBQ pits. They are used some, but not overly so. They aren’t impacted. Just expand one or both of those with ONLY the Prop 68 dollars! And, by the way, there’s plenty of shade and picnic tables in the pool area too — even expanded since the RPC initially considered this unneeded project.
    Check out all the nice and mature shade trees in Arroyo Park that us neighbors and Tree Davis volunteers planted 20 years ago, so we wouldn’t need expensive hardscape infrastructure. This is so un-Davis. Or perhaps this is the new, uncreative Davis?

    Reply
  5. Keith

    “Regarding $400K for a house, I’m wondering if this will actually turn out to be a “house” for homeless people.”
    Good point Ron, and as I understand it the Boise court ruling makes it much harder to remove them.

    Reply
  6. George Galamba

    I’m not familiar with this particular proposal, but would like to support a point made by Joe Krovoza, and that is in regards to maintenance. It is fun and sexy to put in new toys, but maintaining them is boring, but expensive. I’m thinking of the fountain that used to be at farmer’s market. In the end, it was just cheaper to rip it out than maintain it. Also, the greenbelts have gone to weeds. The city doesn’t seem to have the funds to maintain the current infrastructure, including the roads, but continues to add more. What’s the point if it’s just going to be another eyesore in a few years?

    Reply
  7. Barbara King

    Definitely should go back to the Recreation and Park Commission.

    Reply
  8. Alan C. Miller

    $409,000 ?
    A friend said the replacement cost for a total loss on his house in Davis is just over $200,000.
    Double that for a roof structure and a few picnic benches.
    Yeah.
    Thanks for making this one so easy for us.
    A some point government waste gets so transparent that it is plain for all to see.
    Are there still any of those consumer watchdog shows on local TV that we could “tattle” on our City and expose this for all to see ?

    Reply
  9. Toni

    So what did city council decide? Spend not spend? Defer?

    Reply
  10. Alan C. Miller

    4-1 to spend; Donna Neville was the NO vote and most questioned the spending; courageous of her. Most odd was the staff claim that the cost of the project was always in the $400k range.

    Reply
  11. Roberta L. Millstein

    And then the City complains that we have no money and proposes various draconian ways out of it. Not that $400K is a lot in the grand scheme, I don’t think, but it seems pretty par for the course for this and recent City Councils. Also, as the Krovozas point out, there is also the maintenance to consider as well as other unfunded needs that the $400K could be better used for.

    Reply
  12. Alan C. Miller

    As I knew would come up, the particular money can only be used for certain purposes, and not for maintenance. But when you are talking double to build a roof with no walls and four picnic benches than it would cost to replace an entire house, it is time to return the money, “no thanks”. But government representatives do not do that, ever. They are always driven to bring as much government money into their jurisdiction as they can. This is the rot of government.

    Reply
  13. Roberta L. Millstein

    Well, right, especially since it commits you to future maintenance. And was there no other way to spend the money? The CC is always in an f-ing hurry, always buying into the “act now or you’ve missed your chance” BS, never looking deeper into why they are being hurried along, the I-80 widening and BrightNight just being two recent-ish examples.

    Reply
  14. Toni

    The shade structures were first mentioned in a 2012 master plan and then surveys are sent out in 2019. There was mention of $250k from a RIRE grant to fund. I hope there is an audit of this. I doubt if the survey had said it would cost $400k for a roof and four tables most people would have balked at the price/cost and then staff and the city manager could have hit the pause button on this one. Sad.

    Reply
  15. Alan Hirsch

    The design of the structure…having only 4 column and long clear spans is the most expensive possible design for this. It required massive truss on the roof.
    This is unnecessary and costly.
    This is like 1/4 mile long $8 million grade separated aerial structure crossing RR and Covell from the Cannery staff proposed to city council.
    Luckily at the time we have Brett Lee, an engineer on council. and Robb Davis who was not above questioning staff.
    They came up with an improved ADA compliance solution you can now see that the overpass that saved the city Millions.

    Reply
  16. Alan C. Miller

    OOOOooooo . . . I thought I was agreeing with you, but your support of the awful Cannery “solution” tanked that. Yes it saved millions of dollars, but it wasn’t a path that takes people from where they live directly in the direction they are going, but instead makes a ‘loop-de-loop’. There are times one needs to spend the money. Especially when the preferred-solution by staff was already a 2nd-best, as Cranbrook’s owners (and/or UPRR) wouldn’t allow the truly-best solution to be built –> a direct connection from Cannery to the H Street Tunnel along the tracks. Big business killing the public good.
    As for the shade structure, I fully agree . . . and with the true solution: TREES. And you touched on the same thing Donna Neville touched on: surveys are usually designed to confirm the outcome the survey sponsor is seeking.

    Reply
  17. Ron O

    Yes it saved millions of dollars, but it wasn’t a path that takes people from where they live directly in the direction they are going, but instead makes a ‘loop-de-loop’. There are times one needs to spend the money.
    I agree. And this is likely to be an issue regarding “Covell Village, Redux”.
    Also, how’s the “solution” (regarding those who live at Lincoln40/Ryder) working out, in regard to their “commute” to UCD?

    Reply
  18. Tuvia ben Sima Rivka ve Avraham Aharon

    The fake crossing from the Cannery towards F St etc is unmitigated garbage. It would been better to further modify the intersection of Covell and J St and add a physically-separated bike lane all the way to the passage towards the tunnel. It’s ADA-compliant, yes, but so is the new connector from east Olive to Pole Line, and the latter is also garbage…. way too steep (e.g. 8% vs. roughly 5% for the multi-use path that’s part of the 80 Richards project, and in the Netherlands the typical max is more like 3 to 4%), truly useful only by fit people and those with e-bikes. Its primary purpose was to create a way for children on east Olive to get to school in South Davis, but at least for younger kids this means a cargo bike or trailer and that’s not do-able on the connector except via e-bike. BUT staff will not admit this mistake, SACOG will not admit they were clueless to fund it.
    About “widening” I-80, while fortunately not only experts know that this induces more traffic, it’s perhaps better to use something like “fattening” – to contrast with “road diet”…. or “consumptive clogging”…

    Reply

Leave a reply to Roberta L. Millstein Cancel reply