Detailed Breakdown of What’s Wrong with the City’s Management Contract for Fair Park: Part 2

 … or how parts of this plan are like going to Costco. Continuing from Part 1, we pick up here with money and more.

As a reminder, to aid in separating language taken directly from the 12-page slim contract and my interpretations, I’ve left the original language as is.  Sections where I note where “articles” and “sections” (major and minor buckets) have been left out of the shortened contract, I’ve tried to summarize their contents.  Long and/or complex paragraphs I have inserted “returns” to break them into more easily digestible chunks, their wording is unchanged.   My opinions are underlined from here on …

ARTICLE III

MANAGEMENT FEE AND OTHER FISCAL MATTERS.

I’m not going to dissect this section because, believe it or not, the money isn’t the most important thing.

In situations like this, I’m not concerned about the money … $1 or $1 billion … I really don’t care.  What I care about is what I’m getting for the money, and was it efficiently spent. I ask you to feel the same.  The battle about this contract isn’t about the money, it’s ensuring that the City receives precisely what it wants by articulating those needs clearly and unambiguously within this contract. This contract is not precise.

For another example, Section 3.01 details the annual management fee the City is to pay the Foundation (call it $20 million a year).  How much more is that fee compared to what the City already pays to maintain Fair Park?  What will that difference get us?  We don’t know because it’s never been spelled out in any meeting I’ve sat in, nor any of the media coverage I’ve read. 

Section 3.03 talks about bond money.  The first proposed bond money would be part of 2017’s goodie bag.  If the bond is approved, it calls for $75 million for Fair Park but only requires $25 million be paid unless the Foundation can raise the additional $50 million through private fundraising (which likely equates to slapping corporate names on every bench and toilet seat). But again, what does the City get for that $75 million?  What does the City get for the additional $50 million in the 2020/2022 bond? We don’t know because the management agreement is just that.  It’s not a redevelopment plan. 

Apparently only after we transfer management and agree to decades of payments can a plan be developed (get a mortgage and then we’ll show you the house). How do we know if the allocated monies are enough to achieve our goals? (We’re surely not allocating too much).  We know in our gut that whatever redevelopment plan is ultimately selected, it will absolutely, positively go over budget … likely WAY over budget. We know this because even if there were a concrete redevelopment plan with costs applied to it, it would still go over budget.  Not having a redevelopment plan before budgeting only ensures it will go even further over budget. It’s like going to Costco with $20 in cash and no shopping list. You wind up at checkout with a boxcar full of stuff and pull out the credit card to pay later.

ARTICLE IV

MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF FAIR PARK.

Section 4.03  Performance Plan and Reports to Park Board.

Performance Plan. In order for the Park Board to evaluate the performance of the Foundation during the Term of this Agreement, the Foundation shall submit to the Park Board a Performance Plan for Fair Park (the “Performance Plan”) as described in this Section 4.03.  The Performance Plan will set forth the performance objectives for Fair Park, which shall address (but not necessarily be limited to addressing) those performance objectives identified by the City set forth in Section 1.01(b).  The Performance Plan will identify “performance indicators” reasonably related to the performance objectives.  The performance indicators to be included in the Performance Plan shall include but not necessarily be limited to

• (i) the number of visitors to Fair Park;
• (ii) the number of events held at Fair Park and at the various institutions and venues located thereon;
• (iii) the Foundation’s net and gross operating revenues;
• (iv) Capital Expenditures at Fair Park, including the Fair Park Capital Bond Expenditures;
• (v) contributions to the Foundation or other contributions obtained for the benefit of Fair Park, from both the City and Non-City Sources;
• (vi) the amount of contributions raised for the signature community park;
• (vii) the amount of green space at  Fair Park; and
• (viii) the Foundation’s progress in meeting City MWBE Goals.  (Note: MWBE = Minority and Women Business Enterprises)

The year beginning on January 1, 2018 and ending on December 31, 2018 will serve as the base year to measure the Foundation’s performance under the Performance Plan.  During the Term of this Agreement, the Performance Plan will be updated by the Foundation from time to time or as reasonably requested by the Director.

Hasn’t the City tracked many or all of these criteria for years? Why aren’t the past 15 years of this data readily available? Shouldn’t the Foundation simply take over their ongoing measurements? And if the City doesn’t measure ALL of the criteria required, isn’t partial data on what has been measured better than seeing nothing until 2019? Surely the Foundation’s first years will be a great improvement over the City’s apparent mismanagement? (If Fair Park wasn’t mismanaged, we wouldn’t be here, would we?)

The insertion of MWBE criteria, while applauded, is only measurement of progress.  There is nothing in this contract mandating the Foundation to follow MWBE rules adopted by the City. If they’re not bound to follow those rules, they are less likely to follow them.

(b)   Development of Performance Plan.  No later than April 30, 2017, the Foundation shall identify the performance objectives and performance indicators to be included in the Performance Plan and shall provide a written report to the Park Board with respect to same.  No later than December 31, 2017,  the Foundation, in collaboration with Park Department staff, shall identify and develop the various devices and systems that will be used to measure the Foundation’s performance with respect to the performance indicators and shall provide a written report to the Park Board with respect to same. The Performance Plan shall be subject to Park Board review and approval.  During the year beginning on January 1, 2018, the Foundation shall collect the data necessary to measure the baseline with respect to each of the performance indicators.  After the collection of this data and no later than   April 30, 2019, the Foundation shall submit the initial Performance Plan to the Park Board.

As a researcher, this is bonkers. It will take the entirety of 2017 to put the systems in place to measure their performance criteria? I can see that some (unnamed) criteria may require new systems to gather that data, but all of 2017? And as I read (i) to (viii) above, none of that data requires new systems. All of it can be extrapolated from City data or tracked by the Foundation day one.  There is no need for the 2017 black hole before beginning to collect data in 2018.

• Reports to Park Board. During the first two (2) years of the Term of this Agreement, the Foundation shall provide to the Park Board a report regarding significant activities at Fair Park, including but not limited to the transition of Fair Park Management to the Foundation, no less than quarterly.  Starting in the year beginning on January 1, 2020, the Foundation shall provide to the Park Board an annual report summarizing its performance under the Performance Plan during the preceding year, such annual report to be provided no later than April 30 of each year.  The annual report will also include other significant activities and accomplishments that occurred at Fair Park during the preceding year and information regarding activities or improvements planned for the future.

For the first two years the city gets quarterly reports and then annually thereafter. Why the change? The Management Fee rises just as the City gets reduced data?

(d)   Remediation Plan.  If in any given year the Foundation fails to meet any one of the performance indicators as set forth in the Performance Plan by a derivation of ten percent (10%) or more, the   Director or Park Board may, after taking all factors into consideration, require the Foundation to     engage an independent consultant at its sole expense to develop and oversee the implementation of a remediation plan.  As part of the remediation plan, the Foundation shall provide periodic updates to the Park Board on the remedial action being taken.

In the last iteration, the remediation plan required the hiring of an independent consultant to figure out what went wrong.  I bold-underlined “may” because it’s now optional.  Less oversight.  Giving the people who messed it up the responsibility of fixing it?  No.  If I wreck your car, I don’t get to DIY its repair, I have to use a qualified repair shop. If the Foundation’s plan flounders, they must be required to seek outside help.

Stay tuned for parts 3 and 4.

Remember:  High-rises, HOAs and renovation are my beat. But I also appreciate modern and historical architecture balanced against the YIMBY movement.  If you’re interested in hosting a Candysdirt.com Staff Meeting event, I’m your guy. In 2016, my writing was recognized with Bronze and Silver awards from the National Association of Real Estate Editors.  Have a story to tell or a marriage proposal to make?  Shoot me an email [email protected].