15 - COLLEGIATE DRIVEItem No. 15
memorandum
TO: Mayor & City Council
FROM: John Godwin, City Manager
SUBJECT: COLLEGIATE DRIVE
DATE: April 10, 2015
BACKGROUND: In February 2013 the city council approved a contract with a local
engineering firm 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. However, at
that May 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 frontage of the roadway. Even so, I recommended deleting the $228,957.06 for the
driveway, which was far too expensive in any case.
STATUS OF ISSUE: The council then discussed its concerns about not widening the bridge,
stating that this would become a chokepoint for traffic going from three lanes to two, and then
back to three. I pointed out that the third lane was a continuous turn lane only, which we would
never build on a bridge in any case (you do not make left turns on a bridge), but the council
rejected all bids and the project was indefinitely postponed. The project remains on the CIP that
was provided to the council last summer during budget preparation, for calendar year 2015. We
believe the added turn lanes would still be an advantage during periods of heavy traffic, such as
during soccer games, etc. and still do not recommend widening the bridge.
BUDGET: Funds are available from bonds sold in 2010, and may be spent on no other project
or location.
RECOMMENDATION: Discussion/direction only.