New Merriam Community Center & Aquatic Center Project Issues

Significant Problems With Design and Process

by David Neal, Merriam City Council

September 14, 2018

As a member of the City Council, I believe it is one of the duties of all elected officials to provide oversight and thoughtful judgment concerning activities that the City is undertaking. When something doesn't seem right, as an elected official you should ask questions and try to understand to the best of your ability any discrepancies between the information that has raised your concerns and any other factual information you can develop. The purpose of this series of posts is to discuss issues that have been raised about the new Merriam Community Center and Aquatics Center project.

Disclaimer: Within this post are images I have adapted to demonstrate ideas that I am attempting to communicate to the public. Some of these images have been derived from other images that have been presented to the public as part of the Merriam Community Center design process and may appear to have been documents produced as part of the City's design process. Rather then being official city documents, they were produced using available software tools as derivations from original documents. They are included as part of the discussion since I did not have direct participation in the City's design process that produced the original documents, I did not have access to the design software used, or to the outside design consultants directly. I was forced to use the public documents and add overlays or other modification for illustrative purposes as part of my discussion with the public. Despite the possible presence of company logos on some derived images, these adaptations were prepared by me alone.

This page contains summaries of longer (chapter) portions of the design audit and process audit I have been conducting since early July related to problems with the new Merriam Community Center project. The details can be found by following the links at the bottom of each summary section on this page.

Chapter 1: Overview

As a result of a design audit I undertook when a disturbingly inadequate design for outdoor aquatics was first presented to the City Council for approval on July 9, 2018, I have discovered and compiled detailed evidence in this report showing that:

• The outdoor aquatics proposed design continues to be insufficient to meet the expectations of Merriam residents.
• The design process has been seriously flawed, conducted by city staff alone without feedback or consultation during the critical early decisions with either the Community Center Design Committee set up for that purpose, or with the City Council which is the only body answerable to voters.
• Actual funding for the design produced does not fit within the $30 million budget brought before voters in September 2017.
• When confronted with public resistance to the significant design flaws discovered when the major elements of staff-decided design were actually first revealed to the public and Governing Body five months after starting work, the internal staff-led design team and city leadership appeared unwilling to review or re-think their choices beyond a few minor concessions provided at a significant additional cost.
• The real cost numbers to deliver the promises made to Merriam residents in the 2017 Facilities Master Plan are proving to be higher, so outdoor aquatics has been significantly downgraded in the design for the new community center to cover the shortfall..

Here are the designs that have been considered:

The City Council did not approve the original staff recommendation. Instead in a 6-2 vote, on July 23, 2018 facing intense pressure from staff to decide on an aquatics design lest the 2020 summer outdoor pool season opening of the new outdoor pool be delayed, the City Council approved an additional $1.6 million for a slightly larger pool design, but still containing the diving well integrated within the main small swimming pool.

I was one of the 'no' votes. I believed then as now that there are so many problems with the design of the facility, with the design process, and with the manipulation of information, that the project needs a pause in order to sort things out. We can and should do better for the residents of Merriam.

Here are three designs that should have been considered:

This design provides an economical way to separate the dive well from the main swimming area of the 60' x 82' (25 meter 8-lane) pool. The design is less expensive because the dive well remains part of the same basin (eliminating the need for its own filtration and chemical system) by using a connected notch to house the diving area. The design does require the long side of the pool to run east to west like the Master Plan envisioned. To get the extra room necessary to re-orient the direction of the main pool, the community center building needed to have some design adjustments that could be made with out "starting over." Specifically, the width of the courtyard was reduced from 90' to 70' and the building was also moved 10' east on the site. The internal design of the building would require some reconfiguration of the office area and filling in of the NE corner notch in the current design.

This design idea could provide an economical way to both separate the dive well from the main swimming area of the 60' x 82' (25 meter 8-lane) pool and also provide for outdoor water slides with a second notch-out to the south. The outdoor slide could take advantage of the natural slope south of the outdoor aquatics site area.

This design idea could provide a way to keep using the existing Merriam Aquatic Center while still building the new Community Center with indoor aquatics, the library and the parking structure. The 90' width of the entry courtyard in the current design could be maintained. Essentially this idea involves moving the building location and would potentially require adjustments based on steeper topography or alternatively some additional site preparation costs. The parking structure would also need to feature a ramp. Also surface parking east (top left of plat) of the existing Merriam Aquatic Center would be retained. A nice bonus is that the area directly west of the community center where the outdoor aquatics was originally supposed to go could be instead used as a children's playground or a garden.

There are other design ideas that could be considered, particularly if the Antioch library was not relocated to the site. I have seen no evidence despite repeated asks that multiple concept designs were prepared in the early stages of design. If there were such alternatives, they never made it past staff. No credible feedback process involving Merriam stakeholders was conducted during the first 5 months when the design was set by the City staff team and the design team working under the McCarthy design-build contract. Staff may have been pre-occupied trying to woo the Johnson County Library to our site in order to free up the valuable commercial land along Shawnee Mission Parkway for private development.

Building a suitable new community center with indoor and outdoor aquatics at the anticipated project cost with the project attributes documented in the 2017 Park and Recreation Facilities Master Plan now appears highly questionable. Therefore, the current project design should be reviewed/audited thoroughly before demolition of existing facilities or construction of the new community center proceeds.

For the details of my concerns surrounding the current outdoor aquatics design please review the article, "Explanation of 'NO' Vote - Aquatics Design - City Council Meeting - July 23, 2018."

Chapter 2: Ignoring the 2017 Master Plan Budget

Based on my engineering and construction background, after seeing things that clearly did not make sense following the design presentations for outdoor aquatics in July, 2018, I began to carefully review the 2017 Facilities Master Plan and supporting documents for the new Merriam Community Center. I have reviewed the design work product of the internal staff-led team. I have reviewed the work of the various committees involved in the selection of the design-build contractor and in the design review process for what amounts to a no-bid design and construction project. As a result, I have discovered and compiled detailed information in this report that appears to show that during the City's implementation of the "design-build" process:

• The 2017 Facilities Master Plan was selectively ignored, particularly with respect to aquatics design.
• A $10 million planned investment in new aquatics was reduced to $4.4 million unilaterally by staff without consultation with the City Council or other committees related to the new community center project. The remaining $4.4 million in the project budget was directed mostly to the indoor aquatics features, leaving token amounts for outdoor aquatics.
• After public outcry, an additional $1.6 million of funding had to be added to the project to marginally improve the outdoor aquatics design.
• Early staff design decisions regarding the Community Center building that increased the cost of the building (including an expensive entry courtyard) meant that the original $30 million cost estimate for the project was low. Since the planned funding for the project was only $30 million, the project was clearly underfunded.
• In deciding the amount of funding to put before the voters in a Special Election, the City made the mistake of not adjusting the Master Plan cost estimates for 18 months of inflation. This meant that the project started out $2 million underfunded on the day the Special Election vote was approved.
• The Community Center campus design was significantly altered by the re-location/co-location of the Antioch Library to the Community Center campus immediately after the Community Center Special Election. This idea and early discussions about it were not included in the community center public vote discussions about the Community Center project despite being discussed internally for at least 6 month prior to the vote.
• The introduction of the library into the Community Center project seems to have been a primary driver in the design of the Community Center site, squeezing out room for an appropriate outdoor aquatics design. The library's requirements for the combined building entrance area, building orientations and elevations were major elements in the site plan decisions that limited what could be provided in terms of outdoor aquatics.
• The Johnson County Library stakeholder interests seem to have been much more closely involved in design discussions during the critical early months of design than the new Merriam Community Center's interested parties who were represented only by City staff. Since staff was also actively negotiating/lobbying for the Library to co-locate, staff was providing concessions in support of a new project deal despite being obligated to deliver what the residents of Merriam voted for in the Master Plan. There should have been active participation of other community center stakeholders to represent the Merriam residents' interests in such a negotiation with the Johnson County Library.
• Parking requirements for the site that contains both a community center with aquatics and a public library realistically requires the construction of a multi-level parking structure that will be paid for by the City of Merriam.
• Although a $5 million cost (now $6.6 million) is cited for this parking structure, most of the TIF money involved is really being used to pay for Community Center site preparation costs and infrastructure originally included in the $30 million project budget. This is necessary because the $30 million in the Master Plan implicitly approved by voters was not enough to build the project as currently designed.
• Major decisions about the design, project budget emphasis, additional funding needs and other important matters were made 'behind closed doors' by City staff (and possibly a very few others) without a full airing before Merriam's elected officials.
• This series of unilateral incremental staff decisions have eaten up the project clock making them hard to revisit, and have significantly negatively altered the community center project deliverables and increased the City's financial outlays by 22% so far.

In summary, major decisions about the design, project budget emphasis, additional funding needs and other important matters were made 'behind closed doors' by City staff (and possibly a very few others) without a full airing before Merriam's elected officials. These decisions have significantly altered the community center project deliverables downward and increased the City's financial outlays by 22% so far. The design direction and the promises made to Merriam residents as reflected in the 2017 Facilities Master Plan appear to have been very poorly followed during a feedback-deficient internal staff design process. Outdoor aquatics has been significantly downgraded in the design for the new community center as a result.

Process breakdowns have resulted in a design featuring a costly entry courtyard and a constrained outdoor aquatics area leading to an inflated project cost that can't fit the features detailed in the Master Plan into the original $30 million project budget. At a current project budget of $36.6 million, Merriam is still getting less than expected for more money. Therefore, the current project design should be reviewed/audited thoroughly before demolition of existing facilities or construction of the new community center proceeds.

For the details of my concerns surrounding the failure to follow the direction provided by the 2017 Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan and the staff decision to de-emphasize outdoor aquatics, please review the article, "Ignoring the 2017 Master Plan Budget."

Chapter 3: Past Distortions - selling the need for NEW

Based on my engineering and construction background, I have carefully reviewed the supporting documents leading to the City's decision to ask Merriam residents to fund a new Merriam Community Center. As a result, I have discovered and compiled detailed evidence in this report that appears to show that during the City's marketing of the new community center project:

• Costs to repair, renovate, upgrade and expand Merriam's existing facilities were grossly overstated when marketing the new community center to voters and possibly to members of the City Council.
• Conversely, the costs to construct a new community center with indoor and outdoor aquatics appear to have been significantly understated when marketing the plan.
• Problems with continuing to use the existing community center building and the existing Merriam Aquatic Center were exaggerated and over-dramatized.

In summary, key numbers were inaccurately portrayed to the public through the city’s marketing material for the new Merriam Community Center. The real cost numbers to deliver the promises made to Merriam residents in the 2017 Facilities Master Plan are proving to be higher, so outdoor aquatics has been significantly downgraded in the design for the new community center to cover the shortfall.

Those incorrect numbers consistently supported building a suitable new community center at a project cost that now appears highly questionable. Therefore, the current project design should be reviewed/audited thoroughly before demolition of existing facilities or construction of the new community center proceeds.

For the details of my concerns surrounding the pre-vote marketing of the new community center project to voters, please review the article, "Audit of the Pre-Vote Information Reveals Misleading Distortions."

Chapter 4: Design-Build Process - Too few safeguards used in the Merriam process

Based on my engineering and construction background, I have carefully reviewed the design process for the new Merriam Community Center from the selection of a contractor to the current design documents existing in September 2018. The design has changed slightly but all of the problems listed were present and would not have been mitigated if members of the public and City Council had not intervened beginning in July 2018.

I have reviewed the work of the various committees involved in the selection of the design-build contractor and in the design review process for what amounts to a large ($36.6 million) no-bid design and construction project. As a result, I have discovered and compiled detailed information in this report that appears to show that during the City's implementation of the "design-build" process:

• The selection of the design-build contractor team was made by an appointed group of individuals collectively lacking adequate knowledge/experience in technical aspects of major construction projects to evaluate the suitability of competing teams from a technical and experience fit perspective with this project.
• The Design-Build Selection Committee was overweighted with staff individuals that have a direct chain of command reporting structure to the Mayor.
• One of the other two non-staff (and consultant) individuals on the Design-Build Selection Committee seem to have had a conflict of interest because of key decision making roles with both the Johnson County Library and with the City of Merriam. Decisions related to an emerging partnership between the two entities necessarily have trade-offs meaning such an individual with dual loyalties cannot reasonably be expected to make a decision affecting one party without impacting the other party.
• The Design-Build selection process was truncated and did not perform the second phase of what is recommended to be a two phase selection process.
• The lead architecture and engineering (A&E) firm and the A&E project manager selected for the Merriam Community Center project have a long track record designing library buildings for Johnson County and other jurisdictions, but no significant record designing community centers with aquatics.
• The selection process for the Community Center Design Committee which appears to have been a collaboration between the Director of Parks and the Mayor, did not result in even one member selected from the Merriam aquatics patrons community, despite the fact that the 2017 Facilities Master Plan included approximately 1/3 of the new community center project budget earmarked for aquatics.
• After selection of the design-build team, the announced early phases of design also appear to have been truncated in terms of considering multiple concept designs. If more than one concept design was considered (I have been asking what other concept designs were prepared and have not yet received an answer), alternatives were not shared beyond the city staff project team. Alternative concept designs were not shown to the Community Center Design Committee, the Parks Board, the Community Center Steering Committee, or the City Council.
• The Community Center Design Committee never met during the first 4-5 months of design work. Staff made all the early critical decisions with out any broader feedback from Merriam's stakeholders.
• The library interests seem to have been much more closely involved in design during these critical months than the new Merriam Community Center's interested parties.
• The first Design Committee meeting on June 6, 2018 dealt with presenting an already-decided "geode" building design concept in a highly developed site plan and building design. This pattern of presenting completed design decisions cut out any chance of a meaningful feedback mechanism.
• The June 6, 2018 meeting was also significantly devoted to discussion the requirements and design implications of co-locating the library on the community center campus. No discussion of aquatics was even thought to be important to consider even though the staff-decided design decisions forced serious constraints on the aquatics design.

In summary, major elements of a competent design-build process were not completed for the new Merriam Community Center in the early stages. The design direction and the promises made to Merriam residents as reflected in the 2017 Facilities Master Plan appear to have been very poorly followed by the feedback-deficient internal staff design process. Outdoor aquatics has been significantly downgraded in the design for the new community center as a result.

Process breakdowns have resulted in a design featuring a costly entry courtyard and a constrained outdoor aquatics area leading to an inflated project cost that can't fit the features detailed in the Master Plan into the original $30 million project budget. At a current project budget of $36.6 million, Merriam is still getting less than expected for more money. Therefore, the current project design should be reviewed/audited thoroughly before demolition of existing facilities or construction of the new community center proceeds.

For the details of my concerns surrounding the failure to follow the direction provided by the 2017 Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan and the staff decision to de-emphasize outdoor aquatics, please review the article, "Design-Build Process - Too few safeguards used in the Merriam process."

Past Thoughts – My writings about the community center project during the 2017 City Council election campaign.

Looking back at what I thought one year ago and what I know now, it is clear that I was misled like many of our residents. I believed the City's marketing materials.

Now that I have looked at the documents standing behind the marketing materials and found those promotional efforts to be highly (to say it in a polite way) misleading, I can see why we now have a mess on our hands with the new Community Center design. I did not do enough homework at the time. I was wrong. On the other hand, it was reasonable to assume that the City's information to the public was accurate. In my opinion, it was not even close to being accurate.

For the details of my thoughts about the new Merriam Community Center project during 2017 City Council election, please review the articles, "Issues: Community Center"