Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Traffic Calming topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
El Mirage council approves two Hawk Contracting traffic‑calming contracts after debate on prices
Summary
After residents and councilmembers pushed for safety near a community center, El Mirage approved two Hawk Contracting contracts for speed cushions and signage, despite council questions about bid prices and whether striping could be done in-house to reduce cost.
The El Mirage Common Council voted on June 2 to award two construction contracts to Hawk Contracting LLC to install traffic‑calming features on El Mirage Road in two separate segments, concluding extended discussion about bid prices, procurement practices and resident safety.
Agenda item 6.1.a covered a request to install a speed cushion and autism‑warning signage on El Mirage Road between Wells Street and N Street. City staff (Bryce, public‑works presenter) said the project was sent to bid, produced three responses and the lowest responsible bid was from Hawk Contracting (presented in discussion as roughly $55,555; the agenda amount was shown as $61,111). Councilmember Aldridge and others questioned why the cost on this single cushion was comparable to earlier, larger multi‑cushion jobs on different streets; Aldridge said she had a contact in the asphalt business who told her asphalt costs had not risen to justify the increase. Staff explained bid variability (mobilization, asphalt pricing and subcontractor cost) and said other joint‑on‑call (JOC) contractors reviewed the solicitation but declined to bid. After questioning about procurement options and timing, Vice Mayor Parsons moved to approve the contract and Council Member Winston seconded; the motion carried with one recorded dissent and the council instructed staff to continue monitoring cost options.
The second item (6.1.b) proposed traffic‑calming and striping improvements between N Street and Santa Fe Lane, including one speed cushion, one speed table (a raised crosswalk) and signage and striping around a mini‑roundabout. Staff described the package and said the alternate that included painting and roundabout striping added about $11,000 to the base work; the full alternate price shown in discussion was higher because of expanded scope, while the base bid without the roundabout work was presented as $104,000. Councilmembers again pressed whether striping and signage could be completed by in‑house street staff to reduce contractor costs. Nick Russo (Public Works) confirmed the city evaluates striping needs and could perform some striping work; the council’s motion approved the base bid while stipulating that city staff perform striping if feasible, reducing the contractor scope and price accordingly. The motion passed with three recorded nays and the measure carried.
Throughout the debate councilmembers balanced fiscal scrutiny with public‑safety arguments: proponents noted a Dysart Community Center on the corridor and said children (including some with autism) use the area, creating urgency; opponents urged re‑bidding or using previous contractor relationships to seek lower prices. Staff said the city follows procurement rules and that rejecting and re‑advertising is permissible but could produce uncertain results and delay safety improvements.
No contract amendments were recorded at the meeting; council directed staff to pursue the in‑house striping option and to follow procurement rules in any future re‑solicitations.
Votes and formal actions recorded: the first contract was approved (motion carried with one recorded nay); the second contract (base bid with in‑house striping stipulation) was approved (motion carried with three recorded nays).
