Cost estimate
Costs could reach $900k
Known design and construction authorizations total $529,967.17; final invoices, approved change orders, payments and closeout are TBD.
Five-year maintenance scenarios
What repeated buffer damage could add.
Quick Set's bid priced 167 bike-lane buffers at $325 each, mobilization at $20,000, and stationary traffic control at $215 per day. The scenarios below assume two, eight, or seventeen buffer replacements per year (about 1%, 5%, or 10%), one traffic-control day, and either no new mobilization or a separate mobilization comparable to the original bid.
Light2 buffers/year
- Direct units / year
- $650
- Separate repair campaign / year
- $20,865
Moderate8 buffers/year
- Direct units / year
- $2,600
- Separate repair campaign / year
- $22,815
Heavy17 buffers/year
- Direct units / year
- $5,525
- Separate repair campaign / year
- $25,740
One bike-lane buffer$3251 × $325Ten bike-lane buffers$3,25010 × $325All 167 bike-lane buffers$54,275167 × $325All scheduled 4-inch striping$44,403.76$28,698.17 white + $15,705.59 yellowAll scheduled 24-inch white striping$12,045.701,630 LF × $7.39One ADA curb ramp$2,9401 × $2,940 These are MKAGA scenarios, not a City forecast or contractor quote. They assume the authorized capital ceiling is fully used, repeat 2026 unit prices without inflation, and exclude restriping, signs, curb/sidewalk work, pavement repair, City labor, engineering, and legal costs. City crews or bundling repairs could avoid separate mobilization; emergency work could cost more.
Solicitation 26-33-C
Competitive sealed bidding. Lewisville received two bids and staff recommended the lowest responsive, responsible bidder under Texas Local Government Code §252.043.
Approved as Consent Agenda item 6 on April 6, 2026; the Legistar record does not show an item-level roll-call vote.
BidderBase bid
Gibson & Associates, Inc.$535,685.13
Council authorization
Includes $21,045.10 contingency$441,947.17
Public Statements from the City Council
Straight from the City Council
The complete project-related Facebook record located in the reviewed public material, presented chronologically with source context. Open any statement to read it.
This is the earliest project-related statement located in the captured Facebook record. Kelly described resident complaints, increased enforcement, a City review, and possible structural traffic-calming measures.
Find the Dec. 2022 Facebook post ↗Kelly announced the November 2024 public meeting and characterized King Arthur traffic concerns as decades old. The entry uses the meeting date because the Facebook capture did not expose a reliable post date.
Find the 2024 public-meeting post ↗Kelly previewed the consent-agenda construction award and described the project as responding to long-running speeding and multimodal-safety concerns. The official award occurred April 6, 2026.
Find the construction-award Facebook post ↗In this pre-construction post, Kelly summarized the physical design and said the City had worked with HOAs, schools, and residents. The available capture did not expose an unambiguous calendar date, so the entry does not invent one.
Find the pre-construction Facebook post ↗Kelly argued that enforcement alone was not producing the desired behavior and presented the King Arthur project as a complementary tool. The post described the data as covering the prior 75 days, placing it in mid-May; the capture did not expose an exact date.
Find the enforcement-data Facebook post ↗Kelly listed seven asserted communication channels, rejected the claim that there had been no notice, and said the City could consider tweaks while preserving the project. This is retained as his public account; it is not treated as independent proof that every resident received notice.
Find the June 24 Facebook post ↗This separate late-June post followed Kelly's own drive through the work. He again defended prior outreach while asking residents to suggest additional communication methods. The capture did not expose an exact date, so it is not assigned one.
Find the late-June communication post ↗This is the statement the prior page omitted. Kelly expressly said he voted for and supported the King Arthur project, defended the communication record and design changes, and said openness to adjustments should not be read as opposition.
Find the July 1 Facebook statement ↗Kelly posted this reply in the public thread where residents were collecting King Arthur incident information. It is included because it addressed how project concerns should be documented.
Open the July 23 public comment ↗Kelly posted this after residents asked whether King Arthur traffic calming would continue to Josey Lane. In a later comment he distinguished the regional trails vision from the traffic-calming project.
Open the Aug. 2 public comment ↗Kelly said the NCTCOG map was an aspirational regional network, not a City construction page, and urged residents to subscribe to City newsletters and participate when a local design is presented.
Open the Aug. 2 trails comment ↗This was Kelly's reply to criticism of the public-engagement process. It presents his position that residents had meaningful opportunities to participate before construction.
Open the public-input reply ↗Kelly characterized the ADA work as a second project coordinated with traffic calming and encouraged residents to review Council agendas. The City's own June 2025 memo and later bid documents should be used to test that characterization and the unreconciled ramp counts.
Open the budget and ADA reply ↗