REPORT TO COUNCIL
SUBJECT
Title
Note and File the Parks and Recreation Facilities Condition Assessment Report (Kitchell, 2017)
Report
BACKGROUND
The City’s Parks and Recreation Department operates and maintains over 250 acres of parks, buildings, public park easements, joint use facilities with school districts, and special use facilities for the public. Many of the public parks and facilities are over 50 years old and are in various stages of deterioration which can negatively affect the public’s use.
To address the issue, in September 2013, Council adopted a goal to enhance community sports and recreational assets. However, at that time, the City did not have a comprehensive or itemized understanding of the parks deficiencies/needs system wide. In April 2017, the City hired Kitchell CEM to perform a Facility Condition Assessment (“Report”) which was completed over a nine month period and included the assessment of 49 park sites and 65 park buildings.
DISCUSSION
A professional team of Kitchell engineers and architects surveyed each park site and building in the City parks system to inventory and identify items in need of repair and/or replacement. (The study costs do require adhering to new building codes but do not include plans for facility expansion or modernization.) The study accomplished the following:
• The immediate and cumulative costs of repairs, and replacements of each asset, were forecast over a 20 year life-cycle.
• Determined which assets needed to be prioritized based on their condition and separated improvements into three different timeframes (years 1-5, year 6-10, and year 11-20).
• Provided updated information for each and every asset in a park or building including its location, condition, cost and repairs needed which was input into the City’s Enterprise Asset Management System and Geographic Information System.
• Provided updated information for use in park fees nexus studies to calculate new housing developer impact fees, Park Master Plans (used to define or prioritize capital improvement plan project scope) to fix, replace, renovate or upgrade park and recreation facilities.
The Report’s Executive Summary (Attachment 1) provides the assessment methodology, summaries and illustrative diagrams of needs. The individual parks and facilities summary reports are provided in Appendix C, along with definitions and instructions useful in reading the Report. The full Kitchell Report can be accessed on the City website Parks Projects page by scrolling to the Facility Condition Assessment Project at the following link (<http://santaclaraca.gov/government/departments/parks-recreation/park-projects>); facilities are grouped alphabetically by name due to file size.
Park and Buildings Conditions Assessment
The focus of the Study was to identify and prioritize work needed, and to provide conceptual cost estimates so park facilities could be restored to a state of good repair. As part of this analysis, a facility condition index was calculated (called “PCI” for parks and “BCI” for buildings). This calculation compares the cost of current deficiencies/needs to the replacement cost. Each facility was assigned a score between 0 and 100, and the higher the number, the worse the condition. Scores were then grouped into “grades” or descriptive categories of “Critical”, “Poor”, “Fair”, or “Good”.
• Critical condition (PCI/BCI of 31 - 100) facilities show signs of obvious deterioration, equipment fails frequently, areas are shutdown, and systems are nearing or have met the end of their useful life expectancy, user complaints are high, and reactive fixes are common. Critical condition can also include health and safety issues, however none were identified in Santa Clara as part of this analysis;
• Poor condition (PCI/BCI of 11 - 30) facilities look worn, frequency of failure increases, repairs are more extensive and larger, user complaints are frequent, and plans for replacement should be underway;
• Fair condition (PCI/BCI of 5 - 10) facilities may show signs of wear and various specific systems or components (boiler, window, tile) may need replacement without affecting or closing other larger parts of the facility, fixes may be accomplished but additional personnel or time may be needed; and,
• Good condition (PCI/BCI of 0 - 4) facilities look clean and functional with normal maintenance frequency; there are few and infrequent/limited equipment failures; repairs are more cosmetic and preventative; user complaints are low and comments are positive.
To determine the PCI/BCI the following was reviewed:
• Park Elements: visual examinations of roadways, parking lots, pathways, fields, courts, landscaping, and assets (fencing, tables, water fountains, etc.)
• Architectural Elements : items such as roofs, flashing, skylights, windows and doors
• Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing, Sprinkler, Fire Alarms
• Water Intrusions
• ADA Compliance
• Life and safety concerns
• Elevators
The table below summarizes the number of park sites and park buildings in each descriptive category based on the analysis:
|
PCI/BCI Category (“Grade”) |
Park sites |
% |
Buildings |
% |
|
Critical |
6 |
13% |
3 |
7% |
|
Poor |
16 |
34% |
8 |
20% |
|
Fair |
8 |
17% |
8 |
20% |
|
Good |
17 |
36% |
22 |
53% |
|
(Note: some parks do not have buildings; multiple buildings are grouped by park site. See Report for details.) |
47 |
100% |
41 |
100% |
Please refer to the attachments included with this report for additional information about the assessments and the specific PCI for individual parks and BCI for buildings:
• Attachment 2 provides the relative scores for parks;
• Attachment 3 provides the relative scores for buildings;
• Attachment 4 shows the current parks’ site needs and total site replacement cost (excluding buildings) for each park; and,
• Attachment 5 shows the current park buildings’ needs and total building replacement cost for buildings at each park site.
Cost and Timeframes
As part of the analysis, the study also reviewed the timeframe for improvements based on the PCI and BCI. Based on the conditions and predicted date of need, costs are separated into three different timeframes (years 1-5, years 6-10, and years 11-20). The capital costs for the improvements (to bring them back to a Good PCI/BCI) were assigned to each timeframe based on their condition and future need. The projects that are considered immediate because of their current condition were given priority and assigned to a near-term timeframe. These are further defined for each individual park and building in tables 4, 5, and 6 of the executive summary. The near term (five years) and lifecycle (20 years) funding needs are summarized as follows:
Costs to Correct and Improve Deficiencies
Parks & Buildings Deficiency/Needs:
• Near-term (five years) Needs:
o Parks $12.5 million,
o Buildings $36 million.
o Combined $48.5 million without escalation; $53.5 million with escalation.
• Life Cycle (twenty years) Needs:
o Parks $90 million,
o Buildings $65.8 million.
o Combined $155.8 million with cost escalation.
Cost for Full Replacement
Parks & Buildings (facilities of the same size and type):
• Current Cost: $408.6 million (without cost escalation):
o Parks $89.1 million,
o Buildings $319.5 million.
• Life Cycle Cost: $817.4 million (with cost escalation).
The City will need to determine which repair/replacements of deficiencies in parks and building assets should be done “in-kind”, and where it may be more economical to replace assets with new or expanded facilities to address increased program or level of service needs. The costs shown above, exclude facility and/or program expansion, and contingency.
FISCAL IMPACT
Currently, the City does not have funding or a funding mechanism to address the immediate five year Capital Improvement Budget schedule of $53.5 million (with escalation) nor the projected 20-year life cycle costs of $155.8 million system wide (with escalation). The City will need to identify a significant source of one time repair/replacement, rehabilitation, and ongoing maintenance funding to address the needs. Delays in scheduled repairs and replacements may cause other related parts and/or systems to fail, requiring not just repair, but more extensive and/or full replacement before an asset’s full life cycle benefit has been realized. The City will hold an upcoming Study Session that will discuss city-wide infrastructure needs, the need for additional revenues and other funding options, and a possible ballot measure. The findings of this report will be incorporated in that Study Session for Council discussion.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(5) in that it is a governmental organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect changes in the environment.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email clerk@santaclaraca.gov <mailto:clerk@santaclaraca.gov> or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation
Note and File the Parks and Recreation Facilities Condition Assessment Report (Kitchell, 2017)
...Staff
Prepared by: James Teixeira, Director, Parks & Recreation Department
Reviewed by: Manuel Pineda, Assistant City Manager
Reviewed by: Brian Doyle, City Attorney
Reviewed by: Walter C. Rossmann, Chief Operating Officer
Approved by: Deanna J. Santana City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
1. Parks & Recreation Facility Condition Assessment (Kitchell 2017) - Executive Summary
2. Facility Condition Assessment (Kitchell 2017) Parks by PCI
3. Facility Condition Assessment (Kitchell 2017) Buildings by BCI
4. Facility Condition Assessment (Kitchell 2017) Parks’ Needs & Replacement Costs
5. Facility Condition Assessment (Kitchell 2017) Buildings’ Needs & Replacement Costs