Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board previews NV5 recommendation for transportation safety plan and updated parking study with grant-funded match
Summary
Staff recommended NV5 to update the village’s traffic and pedestrian safety plan and the 2014 parking study. Trustees heard project costs, USDOT and NY Empire Development grant match details, and that the parking-study proposer did not meet certain NYS MWBE/service‑disabled‑veteran requirements tied to grant conditions.
At the April 13 work session staff summarized an RFP process for transportation planning and engineering services and recommended NV5 as the proposer for two projects: a comprehensive traffic and pedestrian safety plan and an update to the 2014 parking study.
Staff said the combined proposed scope to complete the two projects was cited at $374,000, with the traffic and pedestrian safety plan expected to be funded primarily by a USDOT grant and a local match estimated at $57,400. For the parking study staff reported a total cost of $87,000 and said the village received a $50,000 grant from the New York State Empire Development Corporation; staff estimated the village share of the parking‑study cost at $43,500 after the grant and other adjustments.
Staff described NV5 as qualified and noted they offered the second‑lowest total cost for the two scoped projects while proposing the lowest hourly rate for on‑call services. Staff also told trustees that the selected proposer for the parking study did not meet the MWBE and service‑disabled‑veteran requirements specified by the NY Empire Development Corporation grant (a requirement that USDOT did not impose for the safety‑plan portion).
Trustees asked for specifics about the parking‑study objectives and what the village expects to do with recommendations. Staff said the update will refresh the 2014 Walker study, assess meter technologies (multi‑space vs single‑space smart meters, pay‑by‑plate vs pay‑by‑space), evaluate turnover and revenue options, and explore partnering with local businesses or developers to expand parking supply or shared parking opportunities.
Staff said both items will be on the next regular agenda for formal action; trustees requested the RFP scope and any MWBE procurement clarifications ahead of that vote.
