090506 Nimmo ParkwayNimmoParkway
Cost Participation Agreement (CPA)/
LagoMarDevelopment
(CIP 2-151)
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
•
CHRONOLOGY
•
STATUS/ISSUES
•
OPTIONS
•
SUMMARY
•
DISCUSSION
•
NimmoParkway
Cost Participation Agreement (CPA)/
LagoMarDevelopment
(CIP 2-151)
BACKGROUND
LagoMarAssociates, Inc. (LMA) is the developer of LagoMar–
?
Phase VII, located north of NimmoParkway Right-of-Way.
In a letter dated September 11, 1997, the City stated that LMA
?
was to provide adequate access by constructing two lanes of
NimmoParkway from TownfieldLane to the “most easterly
point”of LagoMar–Ph. VII. LMA contested this letter,
ultimately leading to the CPA negotiations.
NimmoParkway
Cost Participation Agreement (CPA)/
LagoMarDevelopment
(CIP 2-151)
BACKGROUND (cont.)
To provide for a more logical terminus, the City agreed to cost
?
participate to have NimmoParkway extended from Townfield
Lane to Upton Drive and to construct a “Hybrid”2-lane
roadway.
LMA responsible for design and construction of a “Hybrid”
?
section of NimmoParkway, east of Upton Drive to Albuquerque
Drive. City responsible for permitting and acquisition.
Cost Sharing: LMA responsible for design and construction
?
cost of a “Rural”section, from TownfieldLane to Albuquerque
Drive. City responsible for balance of difference. City
responsible for entire cost from TownfieldLane to Upton Drive.
NimmoParkwayCost Participation Agreement/LagoMarDevelopment
(CIP 2-151)
HYBRID CROSS SECTION
RURAL ROAD CROSS SECTION
NimmoParkway
Cost Participation Agreement (CPA)/
LagoMarDevelopment
(CIP 2-151)
CHRONOLOGY
April 2001 –May 2004 (CPA NEGOTIATIONS)
Cost responsibilities
?
Project Scope
?
Ultimate Resolution at Executive Level
?
CPA Approved by Council on June 1, 2004.
?
April 2004 –August 2005 (DESIGN)
Citizen’s Information Meeting –September 2,
?
2004
Additional Storm Water Design work needed
?
NimmoParkway
Cost Participation Agreement (CPA)/
LagoMarDevelopment
(CIP 2-151)
CHRONOLOGY (cont.)
August 2005 –May 2006 (PERMITTING)
Permitting required from 3 Regulatory Agencies
?
Public Notice Period
?
August 15, 2006
Received construction bids from LMA.
?
NimmoParkway
Cost Participation Agreement (CPA)/
LagoMar Development
STATUS/ISSUES(CIP 2-151)
Design is complete.
?
Acquisition is complete.
?
All Environmental Permits have been secured.
?
Low bid received in the amount of $4.4M.
?
Information received by City on August 15, 2006.
Low bid is approximately $1.6M higher than LMA’s
2003 estimate. LMA guarantees bid price through
October 15, 2006.
NimmoParkway
Cost Participation Agreement (CPA)/
LagoMar Development
STATUS/ISSUES (cont.)
(CIP 2-151)
LMA defines City’s share to be +/-$3.5M. City
?
determined its share to be +/-$2.9M. Discrepancy of
$600K exists over cost responsibilities. Negotiations
required.
Available City project funding is approximately $1.0M.
?
Construction completion anticipated May 2007, if
?
begun by October 15, 2006.
Roadway purpose is to alleviate neighborhood cut-
?
through traffic and to provide alternate access for
Lagomar–Ph. VII.
NimmoParkway
Cost Participation Agreement (CPA)/
LagoMarDevelopment
(CIP 2-151)
OPTION 1
Continue with CPA as planned. Negotiate construction costs withLMA to
achievea more reasonable City cost share.(Requires Council approval for
appropriation of additional funds).
City Cost (Construction)$2.9 -$3.5M (Depending on outcome of
?
negotiations). (Costs based on LMA’scurrent 2006 bid prices). ($1.0M available).
Advantages
1.NimmoParkway from Albuquerque Drive to Upton Drive constructed. (Hybrid
Section).
2.Satisfies alternate access issue.
3.Relieves neighborhood cut-through traffic.
4.Satisfies residents’traffic/transportation concerns.
Disadvantages
1.Requires appropriation of $1.9M -$2.5M.
2.Defers current roadway CIP project(s) to obtain additional funding. (Princess Anne
Road –Phase IV, CIP 2-305; and West Neck Road, CIP 2-502, have been identified)
3.Funding may not be restored to the above project(s).
4.Short time frame for negotiations with LMA.
NimmoParkway
Cost Participation Agreement (CPA)/
LagoMarDevelopment
(CIP 2-151)
OPTION 2
Do not proceed with CPA. City constructs a 2-lane rural roadway from
Upton Drive to TownfieldLane as a CIP project, at a Total Project Cost
of +/-$2.4M when and if funding becomes available. City requires
construction of 2-lane Rural roadway from Albuquerque Drive to
TownfieldLane by LMA.
Advantages
1.City would not have to sacrifice a current CIP project for funding.
2.Partially relieves neighborhood cut-through traffic.
Disadvantages
1.Pushes cut-through traffic to TownfieldLane until NimmoParkway is completed
to Upton Drive.
2.Does not satisfy residents’traffic/transportation concerns.
3.Eliminates multi-use trail.
4.LMA will challenge requirement to construct road. Enforcement difficult.
NimmoParkway
Cost Participation Agreement (CPA)/
LagoMarDevelopment
(CIP 2-151)
OPTION 3
Delete certain design features(i.e. curb/gutter, multi-use trail) and reduce
design section, to reduceconstruction cost. (Requires Council approval for
appropriation of additional funds of $0.5 -$1.1M).
Total Cost(Construction)$3.5M
?
City Cost (Construction)$1.5 –2.1M (Depending on outcome of negotiations).
?
(Costs based on LMA’scurrent 2006 bid prices)
Advantages
1. Lowers construction cost as well as City share.
2. NimmoParkway, from Upton Drive to Albuquerque Drive constructed, most as rural section.
3. Relieves neighborhood cut-through traffic; satisfies residents’traffic/transportation
concerns.
Disadvantages
1. Delays current CIP project(s) to obtain additional funding.
2. Eliminates multi-use trail.
3. Re-design required. Potential cost reductions may be offset by construction market
increases.
4. LMA may not be willing to pursue this option, as they may incur additional costs and delays.
NimmoParkway
Cost Participation Agreement (CPA)/
LagoMarDevelopment
(CIP 2-151)
OPTION 4
Delete multi-use trailand reduce shoulder width, to reduce
construction cost by +/-$200,000.
(Requires Council approval for appropriation of additional funds).
Total Cost(Construction)$4.2M
?
City Cost (Construction)$2.7 -$3.3M (Depending on outcome of
?
negotiations). (Costs based on LMA’scurrent 2006 bid prices)
Advantages
1. Lowers construction cost as well as City share.
2. NimmoParkway constructed, from Upton Drive to Albuquerque Drive.
3. Relieves neighborhood cut-through traffic.
4. Satisfies residents’traffic/transportation concerns.
Disadvantages
1. Delays current CIP project(s) to obtain additional funding of $1.7 -$2.3M.
2. Eliminates multi-use trail.
NimmoParkway
Cost Participation Agreement (CPA)/
LagoMarDevelopment
(CIP 2-151)
SUMMARY
Construction bid cost is $1.8M higher than original (2003) estimate.
?
Current available project funding is approximately $1.0M; requires
?
additional appropriation of funding to complete CPA Project.
Option 1-Continue with CPA Project as planned, obtain additional funding
?
from other CIP Roadway Project(s). Total City Cost: $2.9 -$3.5M.
Option 2-Do not proceed with CPA Project. Program City portion of
?
Nimmoas “Rural”roadway, when funding becomes available. LMA to
construct improvements from Albuquerque Drive to TownfieldLane. Total
City Cost: $2.4M (Total Project).
Option 3–Continue with CPA Project however, delete certain design
?
features, culminating in a minimal “Rural”section. Total City Cost: $1.5 -
$2.1M.
Option 4–Continue with CPA Project however, delete multi-use trail and
?
reduce shoulder width. Total City Cost: $2.7 -$3.3M.
DISCUSSION
NimmoParkway
Cost Participation Agreement (CPA)/
LagoMarDevelopment
(CIP 2-151)