Dear Council Members,
We are very appreciative of Council Member Partida's pulling of item B, the “Arroyo Park Picnic Area Shade Structure Project,'' from the consent calendar July 18. Given the magnitude of the proposed financial commitment, and the fact that the final cost differed so greatly from what the Recreation and Park Commission had been asked to consider, it was certainly appropriate to do so. We continue to hope that even at this point one of the four council members who voted in favor of the project will ask for reconsideration and that the council will vote to send this item back to the RPC.
As you know, at the July 18 meeting, the council, in a four to one vote, approved funding in the amount of $407,675 for an open-air structure that would house six new picnic tables and two barbecues. No plumbing. No wiring. No funds set aside for future maintenance. At the cost of not replacing a tree that had died and of removing precious green space from a well-used and aesthetically pleasing, shady expanse of lawn — an unwelcome departure from the original park plans. A project as staff-driven as any we’ve seen. And this vote was based on grossly misleading testimony from Davis city staff.
The staff members who spoke on behalf of the project were, to put it charitably, clearly uninformed about its history and made statements that were flatly incorrect or obfuscated the facts. Dianna Jensen, for instance, in response to Council Member Partida asking if there were a "trigger" to send something back to the RPC, told the council, "The entire project cost was always anticipated to be $400,000…" When Council Member Partida then asked, "So when this was presented to Rec and Park it was presented for the $400 and the $250 is the grant which can only be used here, is that correct?" Ms. Jensen responded, “That's correct." When Council Member Neville asked a few moments later, "Even from the outset it was anticipated to be at least $400,000…?" Ms. Jensen again answered, "That's right."
So according to staff the cost of the new picnic structure had always been expected to be $400,000. It is understandable that as council members you might not be too concerned, then, if the cost had only risen by less than $10,000.
Except this is wrong. Here is the text from the staff report for the April 20, 2022 RPC meeting where the commission was asked to make its recommendation:
Total cost for the picnic shelter project (emphasis added) located outside of the Arroyo Aquatics is estimated at $257,000 (emphasis added) which includes the installation of a new 24×34 ft shade structure with three, 6-foot concrete tables, two, 6-foot ADA concrete picnic tables, two BBQs, two trash/recycling containers and an ADA-accessible path to the shade structure. Funding sources for this project are using a combination of funds from the Proposition 68 Recreational Infrastructure Revenue Enhancement (RIRE) Grant and Park Impact Fees.
The only time Dale Sumersille, then-director of Parks and Community Services, even mentions the $400,000 figure is when she adds the $250,000 RIRE grant and the $150,000 in park impact fees, which she does once after being pressed for more financial information by Commissioner David Siegel. She goes on to assure the commission, “…we are well within our budget for these two structures to go in." Although the $257,000 figure still seemed to give at least some of the commissioners pause, the RPC approved the exterior structure.
To clarify, this budgeted $400,000 was the total amount of public funds the city had set aside for TWO projects: the two permanent shade structures within the Arroyo aquatics complex AND a single "picnic structure" outside the pool area. It was never stated or implied in any way that the picnic structure project itself would cost $400,000. Anyone present or listening to the RPC meeting that evening would have concluded that, taken together, the two projects were likely to cost cost taxpayers somewhere in the neighborhood of $310,000 ($52,722 for the interior shade structures, approved by the RPC earlier in the meeting, plus $257,000 for the outside picnic structure).
They would also have received the impression that staff had proposed using the RIRE funds for this specific structure after they had been awarded. Per Ms. Sumersille,“The city of Davis was the recipient of a Proposition 68, the RIRE grant…of $250,0000, and so we are making a recommendation that we use some of these monies for this type of project.” This is hardly the restricted use described by staff at the July 18 meeting.
Of course now the total project will exceed the original budget handily, rising to a whopping $518,000 (in your staff report, the bottom line appears to be $464,500 since the staff didn’t include the design cost of $54,300). So an initial budget of $400,000 – which was never expected to be spent in its entirety – becomes an expenditure of $518,000. What was originally estimated to consume $150,000 in park impact fees – at most – will now require $268,800 in non-RIRE dollars, an increase of 79 percent. The cost of the construction contract portion of the budget alone has risen 65 percent to $312,948 from the original engineer’s estimate of $190,000. All of this should trigger the reconsideration about which Council Member Partida was inquiring.
And in the meantime, shade already abounds at Arroyo, with redwoods, sycamores, Chinese pistache, fruitless mulberry and both live and valley oaks offering plentiful shade even on the hottest summer days. At noon, the entire city summer camp can be seen enjoying their lunches in the shade of numerous trees.
Here are the links to both the staff report and the video of the April 20, 2022 meeting. Commissioner Siegel's comments, which are especially telling, start about 1:21:30, and then after an interruption, continue about 1:25:50.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoDkzl9pLYM
We also take exception to Tamiko Kwak's characterization of the new construction as “a priority for the community” after Council Member Neville asked, "What precipitated the decision to add another structure to the park?” To the best of our knowledge, and we have lived adjacent to the park for more than 23 years, no one has ever asked if the community wanted a permanent picnic/shade structure built in the first place. Instead it seems staff took the position the community naturally would want this, and so only bothered to ask if users might prefer “a shaded picnic area, comprising of 4-6 picnic tables outside the aquatics center in the park” or “a shaded area (2 picnic tables) inside the aquatics near the concession area for pool users and their families.” The fact that two-thirds of respondents said they preferred the outside option is hardly a clarion call for a “permanent shade structure,” as termed by Ms. Kwak, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars.
When we reviewed the responses to that same survey’s question, “Do you have any other amenity ideas that you would like to share for Arroyo Park?” we saw that the desire for shade came up fairly often – about 34 of the 267 respondents mentioned it in their response. Of these,15 cited shade as a priority for the immediate pool area, one that has since been addressed by the addition of the two permanent structures within the complex. A shade/picnic structure outside the pool area, however, was endorsed by only six individuals, while another six proposed shading the playgrounds themselves. Adding trees for shade was recommended by at least nine respondents. After shade, the top vote-getter was a dog park, with 22 votes; followed by more park benches, with 12; water fountains and bottle-filling stations, with nine; and a water feature or splash pad, also with nine.
Six respondents indicated they preferred to see the area outside the pool remain as it is, open for ultimate frisbee, soccer, kite flying and other activities. One wrote, “Please DO NOT add more amenities. Multi use grass is the BEST use of the park.” Another: “A shaded picnic area inside the park seems fine. Outside the aquatic area is unnecessary and would take up valuable grass space which is more useful for a variety of purposes.”
To further validate its actions, staff is also wont to point out that according to the City of Davis Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan 2012, one or more participants at a neighborhood workshop addressing park needs city-wide requested “Additional amenities such as shade structures and informal picnic areas.” (Also requested: skate plazas, dog parks, picnic areas with “natural landscaping and minimal hardscape” and “place-based public art that celebrates Davis’ agricultural history and regional context.”)
This is the only mention of shade we could find in the entire document.
The Master Plan also states that “community parks” such as Arroyo should have “group picnic areas.” At 15.5 acres the city's smallest community park, Arroyo already has two; perhaps it is these that should be improved and expanded. We want our park to be welcoming to all but surely ample picnicking and shade can be had for far less than $400,000 and without tampering with the original design of the park.
We urge you to send this project back to the RPC for ideas that capitalize on Arroyo Park’s strengths and advance the community’s true priorities.
Sincerely,
Janet and Joe Krovoza
Davisite 
Leave a comment