[B]URLINGTON — The city council has given final approval to the City Hall Park renovation, authorizing a construction contract despite a higher-than-expected cost for the project.
City officials had estimated the park renovation would cost around $4 million, but amount has risen to $5.8 million. And that’s factoring in around $500,000 in additional savings carved out of the plan Monday.
The approved construction bid, from S.D. Ireland, is nearly $4.5 million. The additional costs include design work, engineering costs, Parks Department work, soil management work and contingency funding.
The city council approved the construction contract in a 10-2 vote Monday night, with councilors Max Tracy and Sharon Bushor in opposition.
The park renovation has been a controversial issue in the Queen City, as a group of residents opposing the plan collected more than 3,000 signatures on a petition asking the council to put an advisory question about the plan on the March Town Meeting Day ballot.
The council decided not to place the issue on the ballot in a 6-6 vote.
The resident group Keep the Park Green opposes the cutting of fully grown trees and increasing the amount of pavement in the park. Supporters, including Mayor Miro Weinberger, believe the renovation will make the park more accessible while revitalizing it with new trees, shrubs and grasses.
While one of the city’s arguments against putting the park advisory question on the ballot was that the additional delay would stretch the project into a second construction season, the project is set to carry into 2020 anyway.
The contractor anticipates a July 2020 finish to construction, according to a memo from the city officials working on the project to the Board of Finance and City Council.
Weinberger said the city would get a lot done this year and that if the city hadn’t followed the timetable it advocated for in the ballot debate, the council would not be in the position to approve the plan and get work started soon.
“We’re trying to get this done as quick as we can,” he said. “Until the bids came in and we were able to work with contractors and work through issues with the low bidder, there was some uncertainty about when it would get done. … I think everything that was said back then is pretty valid, although there is going to be some additional construction activity longer than we had hoped.”
Funding for the project will come from a variety of sources: $1.1 million from annual city bond proceeds; $1.26 million from institutional bond proceeds; $1.5 million in donations; $1.29 million in fees from the 194 St. Paul Street development; $500,000 from the downtown TIF for stormwater repairs; $150,000 from the city’s Penny for Parks fund; and $15,000 from a VT arts grant.
The memo explains the expected cost has risen as the costs to address contaminated soils in the park are higher than anticipated and existing trees on the site makes construction more difficult by limiting the use of traditional construction equipment, means and methods.
The availability of other work in the region, and the fact that the project went to bid in February, which was later than expected and a more competitive time on the market, also increased the price, the memo said. Higher material costs industry wide and specialty construction estimating also were a factor in the increasing price.
Finally, the memo says that the public controversy also worried the bidders.
“Contractors and subcontractors recognize that the controversy creates a range of additional risks for them that are reflected in the pricing we received,” the memo says.
The city cut the cost by around $500,000 by Monday’s meeting from the amount originally going to the council. Changes include replacing planned wood benches with metal benches, using concrete for rain garden walls instead of granite and not having the contractor install the above-ground-elements of the bathroom.
Weinberger said while the contract does not include the exterior bathroom, it will build in the underground utilities necessary to install the bathroom.
“We would have about a year and a half before the new park opens to find a way to get that bathroom back in there,” he said. “I’m committed to finding a way to get that back in there.”
Bushor said she was concerned about the last-minute changes to the design and the tight timeline the city found itself on, and Tracy said he had process and prioritization concerns with the city’s cost-cutting measures.
Park opponents addressed the council in public forum, asking them to reject the contract and go back to the drawing board. Monique Fordham, a leader of KTPG, criticized the city’s evolving explanation of funding sources for the park over time.
“How can anyone say with a straight face there has been a robust public process here?” she said. “The hallmark of this failed process has been a lack of genuine transparency.”
Councilor Jane Knodell stressed that the vote was on the construction contract, not on the park design. She said that the city had informed the council and public about the cost to the best of its ability with what was known at the time.
“It is true that this valued engineering and efforts to reduce the cost, that work has continued through today,” she said. “When we work together between the council and administration, we often work up until the end in order to try to make the best decision possible.”
Before the council’s vote, Weinberger said the council’s approval was a significant step forward for the city.
“We are on the cusp of making the final decision that is going to dramatically improve this key public space in the heart of our downtown,” he said. “Great public spaces require a real investment.”
There is also a pending lawsuit about the park renovation in state court. A judge ruled against a group of citizens seeing an injunction that would stop work on the park. The group is arguing the city violated the city charter by not getting voter approval for the funding sources for the project.
