Council questions $181,110 design agreement and funding plan for Washington Boulevard multipurpose trail

Councilmembers debated whether to authorize $181,110 in preliminary engineering and design work for a proposed Washington Boulevard multipurpose trail and raised questions about grant paperwork, construction cost estimates and the trail alignment.

The discussion began when the mayor called for consideration of a fee proposal from American StructurePoint for “preliminary engineering survey environmental stage 1 design… and final tracings” for the Washington Boulevard trail. Kelsey Morton of American StructurePoint presented the firm’s scope and fee and answered technical questions from council and staff about path width, additional services and what is included in the $181,110 fee.

Councilmembers pressed for details the packet did not provide. Councilmember Cooney asked for examples of StructurePoint’s work in residential corridors. Morton said the firm would provide additional residential examples on request. Councilmember Rock and others questioned the project’s priority compared with other capital needs and said the packet lacked clarity on grant status and long-term maintenance costs.

Councilmember Weiser summarized a months-long review of records and argued the administration had treated the grant and project inconsistently with council’s prior actions. She said a NOWACA (NOACA) grant acceptance bearing a mayoral signature appeared in external records dated March 16, 2023, and that council had not approved a city commitment for the matching funds required for construction. Weiser asked whether submitting the project to ODOT and listing it on NOACA or ODOT calendars had occurred without council authorization. She also raised the legal point that a mayor cannot commit the city above his spending limit without council approval.

Councilmember Rock and others questioned the assumptions behind the probable construction cost in the packet. Council staff said the $1,600,000 construction estimate came from NOACA materials assembled in 2024 and that the figure used 10-foot asphalt assumptions; Morton said current preferred path width guidance is 11 feet but 10 feet may be used in constrained areas. Councilmembers discussed how switching to concrete and expanding width would raise costs. Staff and the StructurePoint representative said many optional tasks (construction inspection, corridor cross sections, drainage report) were either included or could be added as hourly services.

Rock offered an alternative alignment and value-engineering ideas during the meeting: shifting the route one block south onto Bushnell would shorten the route by roughly 530 feet and reduce the number of intersections requiring crossings and boardwalks; reducing the trail width from 11 to 8 feet where appropriate could cut construction cost by about 25%, the councilmember estimated. StructurePoint said its fee is hourly-based; the firm also clarified that some drainage and utility tasks were included in the proposed fee and others would be additional if requested.

Council members also discussed how a portion of the proposed trail—about 1,000 linear feet—lies inside Cleveland Heights; that jurisdictional split affects who pays what. Morton said the firm intends to avoid right-of-way acquisition where possible and to minimize tree removals by adjusting alignment and using landscape architects. Council members repeatedly asked for clearer, updated cost estimates that reflect 11-foot vs. 10-foot widths, asphalt vs. concrete, the latest length measurements and escalation to anticipated construction year costs.

After extended discussion and requests for more information and alternate alignments, the council did not move to approve the StructurePoint fee proposal at this meeting. The mayor asked for a motion; seeing none, the council proceeded to the next agenda item.

Ending: Councilmembers asked staff to return with additional documentation: (1) clarified construction-cost estimates (material, width and length assumptions and escalation to projected construction year), (2) examples of similar residential-trail projects, (3) written status of any NOACA/ODOT submissions and grant documentation showing whether the city had formally committed matching funds, and (4) an analysis of alternate alignments (including the Bushnell option) and tree-impact mitigation measures. The council did not authorize the design contract at this meeting.