16-SOUTH COLLEGIATE RECONSTRUCTIONmemo�andum
TO: Mayor & Council
FROM: John Godwin, City Manager
SUBJECT: SOUTH COLLEGIATE RECONSTRUCTION
DATE: June 3, 2013
BACKGROIIND: In February the city council approved a contract with a local engineering iirm
to design improvements to South Collegiate between Clarksville and the creek. At that time,
there was some concern that expenditures for the driveway to the police building and for the
small parking lot near the trail might not be eligible expenditures based on the original purpose
of the bonds that funded phase 1 of Collegiate. We immediately reexamined the bond language
and also got an opinion from the city's bond counsel, both of which satisfied us that work in and
along the right-of-way of the road was okay. I notified the council of those findings the next
morning and we instructed Hayter Engineering to proceed with the design.
Once design was complete, we advertised the project for bids and opened four sealed bids on
Thursday, May 16. The apparent low bidder was Richard Drake Construction, with a total base
bid price of $892,135.78. On May 20 city staff recommended award of this bid.
STATUS OF ISSUE: At the May 20 meeting the issue of what is and is not eligible was brought
up again. The documents that establish how the 2010 CO proceeds can be legally used are the
published notice of intent (NOI) and the purpose clause of the city ordinance. Both documents
included identical language, as they must, which reads: "For paying all or a portion of the
City's contractual obligations incurred in connection with improving and expanding South
Collegiate Drive and making improvements to the frontage access for South Collegiate Drive
and paying legal, fiscal, engineering and architectural fees in connection with such project. "
Both the drive and parking lot are in the roadway frontage.
It was suggested on May 20 that our bond counsel may have answered the way he did in
February due to a conflict of interest. In addition to that being a very bold charge against a
licensed attorney, I need to point out that the bonds were all sold in 2010. Whether or not we
spend these bonds on a parking lot or driveway has no effect whatsoever on how much the
attorney in question is compensated — which will be $0 in either case.
'71
With all that said, we continue to believe that all of the project that was designed and bid is a
legal and appropriate use of the bond funds. Further, the persons who have any legal recourse to
challenge such uses are the bondholders, who in fact neither know nor care how the surplus
funds are expended, as long as they get their twice annual debt service payment.
Even so, I believe that the $228,957.06 is too expensive far the driveway extension to the police
department (plus the cost of a new electric gate). Therefore, I recommend we delete that portion
of the project and proceed with the remainder. That would make the total recommended bid
award $669,101.80 (and still consistent with state bidding laws). In order to avoid concerns
about the parking lot, I recommend we proceed with the work but pay that $64,197.98 from a
different source. In this way we can move forward and try to get as much work done as possible
during the summer months while school is out, but hopefully avoid any more controversy.
BUDGET: Funds are available from bonds sold in 2010.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve award of bid to Drake in an amount not to exceed
$669,101.80.
� i 1
�