Work Together to Build Efficiently

by Forrest Wendt, AIA

Referendum problems, availability of financing, energy shortages, escalating construction costs, strike delays and other economic variables have caused unlimited problems for Park Districts.

What else is new? Most of you are aware of these problems, and we as consultants and you as Park District members and staff, are all in this together, and should try to arrive at a sane solution to these mutual problems.

I have yet to meet a more dedicated group of individuals than the board members who must spend countless hours toiling over budgets and programs, in addition to their regular business activities. Quite frequently they are rewarded by their fellow citizens with harsh criticism for "inadequate facilities,"waste," grumbling — seldom with praise for a job well done.

From that same perspective I also know that you will never mute the criticism completely, but you can reduce it greatly by acquiring more information before you go into a bond issue or other economic arrangement that will tie your hands for the future.

What kind of information should you acquire? As much informational input as possible to assist in the decision making process. Throughout the state bond issues have passed which turned out to be completely inadequate to meet the needs of the community. With the cost of money so high, increasingly sophisticated public taste, construction costs escalating rapidly, and operating costs increasing proportionately, the homework which must be done may well require the input of skilled professionals. Sound decisions must be made PRIOR to a bond issue for the successful erection and operation of new facilities. The cost of obtaining such information is modest in terms of benefits derived.

There are three kinds of informational input: An interest and attitude survey to determine what type of facility the public desires.

Preliminary schematic designs — based on needs determined by the interest and attitude survey, a site study based on actual site conditions, and cost analysis—based on total facility requirements and site conditions.

Finally, a financial feasibility study to determine if the project can be funded and operated economically, and if so, how?

At this stage the building committee must decide on the type of professional assistance they have in-house or should require from outside consultants. Questions such as the following should also be answered:

1. What are the qualifications of the consultant or consultants?

2. Shall one consultant or two or three consultants be used who are each specifically knowledgeable in their own specialty?

3. Does one consultant have complete expertise in all three feasibility phases?

4. If one consultant is assisted by other specialty consultants, what are the qualifications?

5. Will the report be unbiased or are other contingent fees a possibility if the referendum proves feasible?

6. Will the public accept the report as being valid and unbiased?

Recommending such studies for a given job prior to referendum appears questionable and costly. The term "feasibility study" in the minds of many people seems to connote extravagant luxury and boondoggle. However, there are numerous examples of referendums being passed only to find that the referendum amount delegated to

Illinois Parks and Recreation 10 November/December, 1974

building construction is too low or that operating costs are so high that a Park District cannot afford to operate it effectively.

The cost for the studies is modest in terms of mistakes that can be avoided. Of course, some think that consultants should provide free services prior to referendum passage. This type of thinking can only lead to trouble.

Ask yourself how much time is someone going to put into a program if fees are always "on the come" and how "unbiased" can these studies be? More and more Park Districts are seeing the wisdom of paying fees for feasibility and doing it in a three-step approach.

Finally, since we are making suggestions on how best to plan for new facilities, it is imperative that we come back to something equally basic: How do you retain an architectural firm?

The selection of an architect should not be based solely on his fee. Look at his past work and present qualifications. His experience is important, but it is not even always necessary that the architect has designed a similar facility to the one you are planning, if he will do the proper research.

Do not make your selection of an achitect by asking him how much the completed project will cost at the interview and then base your decision on the firm that gave you the lowest projected cost. Superficial figures are certain to take you down the wrong path.

Satisfied clients are a good recommendation but remember that each project is different. You should expect to have a facility that meets your specific community's need.

Know who will be responsible for your project. Will he coordinate all architectural functions with the Staff and Board?

Finally, it is of the utmost importance that your relationship with the architect is one of trust and compatibility and that the responsibilities of each party are clarified at the time of the contract signing.

A responsive, effective and well functioning Park District is no small task! The need for recreational facilities continues to grow as the public realizes the dimension of increased leisure time and desires to deal with it effectively.

(Editor's note: Mr. Wendt is a partner in the firm of Wendt, Cedarholm, Tippens.)

Illinois Parks and Recreation 11 November/December, 1974