Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks And Recreation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council rejects $532,857 contract for Cauley Creek overflow parking
Summary
Councilors debated a proposed $532,857 contract (plus $50,000 for engineering and a 10% contingency) for a paved overflow parking lot at Cauley Creek Park and voted down the measure after concerns about a roughly $7,000 per-space cost, stormwater requirements, and site selection alternatives.
Get email alerts on the Parks And Recreation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
A motion to award a $532,857 contract to Summit Construction for a paved overflow parking lot at Cauley Creek Park failed after extended council debate.
Director Madsen, presenting bids to the council, said staff reviewed alternatives including pervious pavers but found them more expensive once subgrade and bioretention needs were included. "It was not less expensive," Madsen said in response to a council question about pavers, adding that the alternatives did not reduce the size of required bioretention or the excavation that drives cost.
Council members who supported the paved option said asphalt would be more durable and cheaper to maintain than temporary gravel. "Our residents expect a certain quality of life and standard in our parks," one councilor said, arguing asphalt is better than gravel that must be replenished. Supporters also noted safety concerns that some fire apparatus face access limitations because patrons park near playing areas.
Opponents focused on unit cost and environmental constraints in the Chattahoochee River Basin. Several councilors questioned a cited figure of roughly $7,000 per parking space and urged exploring alternatives before committing large stormwater and bioretention expenditures. One councilor said the proposal felt "reactionary" and recommended considering repurposing existing impervious areas near the Makerspace or planning parking comprehensively as part of future phases.
The motion — which included $50,000 for construction engineering and inspection and a 10% contingency — was moved and seconded. After the discussion, the council voted; the motion failed.
Next steps were not set during the meeting; staff said they would continue to explore alternatives and could consider enforcement of existing parking patterns in the short term.
