Council debate centers on $75,000 Maple–Ash quick‑build pilot; staff says contract will produce stamped plans and before/after analysis

City staff briefed a proposed amendment to the Dow contract to prepare design and evaluation work for a Maple–Ash traffic‑calming quick‑build pilot and to scope the next cycle of traffic‑calming projects.

John Snider introduced the item and said it includes two elements: modifying language for the Maple–Ash pilot (speed reduction and lane narrowing) and narrowing the next cycle of traffic‑calming projects for Transportation Commission consideration. Staff recommended a not‑to‑exceed $75,000 scope for the Maple–Ash work.

Inga (staff supervising the contract) told the council the $75,000 figure buys more than a conditions report: the consultant would prepare stamped engineering plans that a contractor could use to do a quick‑build, perform before‑and‑after speed data collection (city installs speed tubes and the consultant analyzes them), and recommend specific treatments (striping, delineators, bump outs or refuge islands). She said the scope covers four to five blocks on each of Maple and Ash — roughly eight to ten blocks in total — and that the not‑to‑exceed amount was sized to the work.

Several council members pressed whether the $75,000 cost and the Maple–Ash scope could be separated from the larger Dow contract so other projects would not be delayed. Staff said splitting the contract would likely require retracting and rewriting contract language and could push delivery back by at least a month, jeopardizing summer implementation. Council Member Dixon and others said a short delay could jeopardize other projects; opponents argued the city should avoid reverting to expensive consulting processes for quick builds and that tighter written contract language should lock in pilot expectations.

Council later considered an amendment related to the Dow contract; council debate recorded differing views about approving the amendment now versus delaying to refine language. Staff offered to accept written direction and to include explicit expectations in the contract language where practicable.

The council left open options for further refinement while noting the project timeline is tight if the city expects construction this summer; staff emphasized the not‑to‑exceed $75,000 covers design and evaluation intended to allow a quick‑build pilot this season.

The council asked staff to continue refining contract language and to explore whether the Maple–Ash portion can be separated without jeopardizing the broader project schedule.