Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Committee hears why shade shelters can cost $300,000–$491,000; liquefaction testing and bundling proposed to rein in price
Loading...
Summary
District staff told the Facilities & Procurement Committee that recent shade‑over‑play projects came in far above template estimates because of site conditions (notably liquefaction zones), required foundation depths and associated structural design; staff recommended geotechnical testing before board approvals and exploring bundling/design‑build to improve pricing.
LA Unified facilities staff told the Facilities & Procurement Committee on Tuesday that recent shade‑over‑play projects have come in far above early template estimates and outlined technical and procurement reasons for the gap.
Lehi (speaker 2), who presented the Measure US shade‑over‑play program, said an initial 30×40 shade shelter estimate assumed a structure price of about $76,000 to $88,000, but actual all‑in project costs for an example site were $318,000 (construction and all costs). A 30×60 shelter at Sylvan Park — located in a liquefaction zone — totaled $491,000 once deeper foundations and stronger structural connections were required.
Lehi explained that geotechnical conditions drive a large portion of the increase: a typical column foundation is about 8 feet 6 inches deep, but in the Sylvan Park liquefaction area manufacturers and engineers required foundations down to about 14 feet, which adds excavation, more concrete and additional reinforcing steel. Lehi said a geotechnical test for a site cost about $22,000, but the testing cost is small compared with foundation redesign and the added structural frame cost in liquefaction zones.
Board questions and alternatives: several board members asked whether the district could standardize and bulk‑purchase shade models (buy 49 similar shelters), exclude liquefaction sites from the first wave, or use cheaper alternatives (shade sails, tents) if DSA or code barriers were resolved. Chair (speaker 1) suggested staff study attaching simple shade canopies where allowed by code and identifying which regulatory changes would be needed to permit lower‑cost alternatives.
Procurement adjustments: Lehi proposed a series of steps to reduce surprise costs: do site‑specific geotechnical testing before bringing projects to the board; improve budget templates to capture soft costs and contingencies up front; evaluate job order contracting, design‑build and bundling to create economies of scale; and increase outreach to contractors to improve competition (recent bids drew eight or nine bidders on some projects).
Community and equity concerns: board members and committee members voiced frustration that a visible, small shade structure could carry a high price tag in the hundreds of thousands and asked staff to return with clearer breakdowns of foundation/underground work vs. above‑ground materials. Lehi said the team will study bundling options, rework budget templates and present a model for the first group of projects.
Next steps: staff will map the 49 prioritized sites, perform geotechnical testing where necessary, refine budget templates and evaluate procurement approaches before sites are brought to the board for approval.
