Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks Parking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council asks staff for options after $628,000 bid for Cauley Creek parking; members cite cost and safety concerns
Summary
Councilmembers on Sept. 8 discussed using paving savings to build an 89‑space Cauley Creek parking lot; a recent bid came in at $628,000 (about $7,000 per space). Members expressed concern about stormwater costs, maker‑space impacts and safety, and asked staff to return with lower‑cost alternatives and location options.
Get email alerts on the Parks Parking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Councilmembers on Sept. 8 debated a council initiative to build a parking lot at Cauley Creek Park using savings from scaled‑back paving and returned bids. Councilmember DiBiase outlined that the bid for a paved 89‑space lot came in at $628,000; after an existing $300,000 allocation and a $50,000 grant match, the savings would cover the remainder but some members said the per‑space cost seemed high and asked staff to explore alternatives.
DiBiase told the council that reclaiming savings from other paving adjustments could free approximately $768,900; combining that sum with the $300,000 already earmarked would cover the bid. Several councilmembers noted the project’s stormwater requirements and that the recent appearance of a proposed maker space on or near the site changes the analysis; staff were asked to examine whether stormwater work or the maker space would materially change cost or location.
Safety and lighting around the courts were raised repeatedly. One councilmember described visiting the site late at night and said crowded fields and dimly lit areas raise safety concerns; another asked whether police officers are stationed at the park. Staff noted a south substation presence and that the traffic safety unit uses the area, but also clarified that officers are not stationed 24/7 from that building.
Council asked staff to return with additional options: alternative locations, lower‑cost surface treatments or phased approaches, a more detailed stormwater and site analysis, and potential short‑term relief measures such as relocating courts or adding temporary parking. Council expressed a preference for staff creativity and asked for a revised proposal rather than approving the current bid as presented.
