Ballooning costs for Riverfront Park renovation stir debate

Members of the Spokane Park Board questioned the ballooning cost of a Riverfront Park design contract this week, at one point coming close to stripping some projects from the work, including a promised skate park on the park’s north bank.

The contract with Seattle-based Berger Partnership, a landscape architecture and urban design firm, was originally limited to $1.5 million but the firm is now projecting more than $3.8 million in costs, prompting one park board member to warn the final contract cost is “going to be much higher than that.”

The newest additions to Berger’s contract amount to more than $980,000, and were approved by the park board’s Riverfront Park committee. On Thursday, the full board did not approve any additions to the contract, and delayed a decision for two weeks.

The contract, which was awarded last summer, is for work that effectively will set the tone for the rest of the park by designing the park grounds and landscape. The contract also includes setting electrical and irrigation standards, and navigation and wayfinding guidelines.

The Berger contract is just one piece of the larger $64.3 million project funded by a 2014 bond approved by about 69 percent of voters. The project already has come under fire for a lack of construction and talk of a fundraising campaign, notably from Randy Cameron, who was park board president when the bond passed.

Park Board President Chris Wright said the Berger projection wasn’t seen by board members until Wednesday morning, a day before they were to vote on it. He added that the $3.8 million does not represent a growth in the entire park project’s cost, but it means “Berger might get more of the work.”

Berger Partnership could not be reached for comment.

A vote to strip the contract of $30,000 dedicated to the design of the north bank skate park – a promised project when the city demolished the Under the Freeway skate park last summer – failed, but not before most board members said they were unhappy with how the Berger contract has grown.

“I have real reservations about how this contract has unfolded,” said Wright, who voted against de-funding design for the skate park. “I don’t want to put money to the skate park, but there is community support for that.”

Ted McGregor, publisher of the Inlander, suggested removing the skate park design from the contract and said he was in favor of delaying some aspects of Berger’s work, but only if it didn’t stall the entire project.

McGregor also criticized Berger for “designing things we’re never going to do,” such as a building across Post Street from the Washington Water Power building.

“We are never going to build that,” he said.

The strongest opposition to the contract’s growth came from Ken Van Voorhis, a landscape architect who said he was worried the “soft costs” of designing the park would cost more than the “final product.”

Van Voorhis said the funding Berger sought would be acceptable if the entire park renovation had $120 million at its disposal, but “we don’t have that budget.”

“That 3.8 (million dollars) is a projection. I think it’s going to be much higher than that,” Van Voorhis said of the current contract cost estimate. “I need to see the budget. Show us the budget. I haven’t seen it. None of us have seen it.”

Van Voorhis’ opposition spurred Leroy Eadie, the city’s parks director, to accuse Van Voorhis of “spreading inaccurate information” about how the contract has been reviewed by city staff. Van Voorhis had suggested it wasn’t properly vetted by the city’s legal and purchasing staff.

“You can have the feelings you have, Ken, but they are not accurate,” Eadie said.

A decision on the Berger contract amendments was put off until May 25, and the board will hold a meeting to go over Berger’s budget before taking a vote.

“I felt like I needed to have this contract put in context and make sure it was the kind of service we could afford under out budget,” said Wright. “I know staff is very attuned to timelines and deadlines, as they should be, but we don’t like to be rushed.”

Wright said he was confident the firm and city staff could explain the contract growth.

“We need an explanation,” he said. “It’s not going to slow the project down in any measurable way.”