Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Projects topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pflugerville council approves multiple transportation contracts, questions contrast in estimates
Summary
Council approved a supplemental engineering agreement for Kelly Lane Phase 3 (including street lighting) and a construction contract for traffic signals, and authorized a Fenig Lane design agreement; members pressed staff on cost variances and local match for federally funded projects.
Pflugerville City Council on Dec. 9 approved a package of transportation-related items, including a $184,537.32 supplemental professional-services agreement with ESP Associates for Kelly Lane Phase 3 (the supplemental adds illumination/street-lighting design), a $1,344,888 construction contract with Elecnor Belco Electric Inc. for traffic signal system improvements and ADA work, and a roughly $949,870.63 engineering agreement for the Fenig Lane extension.
On the Kelly Lane supplemental (item 4e), council members asked why a summary in the packet showed a different total than the contract; staff confirmed the correct contract total and said the added illumination design continues the project’s established lighting standards. "It's just street lighting," staff said, describing the added scope.
For the Elecnor Belco construction contract (item 4f), Danny McGee, assistant director for traffic and transportation, explained the funding structure: the federal grant covers about 80% of construction, leaving a 20% local match. McGee and council members discussed why the winning bid came in substantially lower than earlier estimates; staff said the contractor offered a competitive bid and staff checked references before recommending award.
Council also approved the Fenig Lane engineering agreement to design an extension intended as a traffic-relief, greenfield project of roughly 0.7 miles, with staff estimating design in approximately one year and construction in about one year thereafter. Council members pressed staff to explain prioritization and cost-per-mile comparisons with other projects; staff said greenfield projects typically require fewer right-of-way and utility relocations, which can accelerate timelines.
All three items were approved by the council during the pulled-consent discussion. Staff committed to deliver clarifying budget detail in follow-up materials where packet numbers differed from contract documents.
