EDITORIAL
Planning costs don't always make sense
It's perfectly splendid that the city of Honolulu gives millions of dollars to neighborhood boards and vision teams for improvements around O'ahu. However, it's perfectly ludicrous that some of the simplest undertakings — such as the planning and design of stop signs, median strips and baseball bleachers — can cost more than their construction.
Moreover, something's terribly off-kilter when planning and design costs eat such a big hole into a budget that the project comes to a standstill because there's not enough left for construction.
An array of such perplexing cases are featured in a report on the cost of Honolulu's neighborhood improvements by staff writer Suzanne Roig. For example, the city has allotted $60,000 for designing a landscaped median strip on Pi'ikoi Street that will cost $10,000 to build. It also has allotted $75,000 to plan where to place stop signs in Kapahulu.
While neighborhood activists appreciate the need for a certain degree of planning, they're growing increasingly frustrated with inflated consultant expenses, as well as outside inspection fees. Also troubled by these bloated administrative costs is City Council Budget Committee Chairwoman Ann Kobayashi.
When she heard that the city is spending $10,000 on a planner who will decide where to place picnic benches at Sheridan Park on Pi'ikoi Street, she said "Why not just go around and ask the residents where to put the picnic benches?"
Fair question.
As a rule, the city says, design costs are in line with the industry standard of 10 percent of estimated construction costs. But the 2003 budget for neighborhood board and vision team projects shows 18 percent of the $71 million budgeted will go to design costs. Such work is rarely performed in-house because the city just doesn't have enough people to do the job.
The city has a baffling system for doling out work to outside planning and design consultants. Instead of bidding on a job, consultants submit their qualifications for review each year and get placed on a special list. When a job comes up, No. 1 on the list gets a call. If they're not available, No. 2 gets a call, and so on.
That's not the most equitable or prudent way to distribute public-sector jobs. Instead of being piecemeal, why not put an entire project out to bid or at least invite competition for the design and planning component? The so-called "design-build" process (which the city has used on occasion) offers a possible alternative. Under this system, a community comes up with a project, gives it a price tag and then invites interested firms to design, plan and build it for that one comprehensive price.
The vision process brings welcome improvements to our neighborhoods, but the financial mechanism could use some fine-tuning.
