Good evening and welcome to the Board of Public Works meeting here at City Hall on this Monday,
November 3rd, 2025. It is now 530 and I'm going to hand it over to Kyla Cox-Dekker, the Board President.
Hello everyone, can you hear me okay? Yes.
All right, great. I call to order this regular meeting of the Board of Public Works on this Monday,
November 3rd of 2025. First up, we have messages from the board. Do we have any messages from board
members this evening? I have none. None for me. All right. Next, we have appeals. Under appeals, we
have appeal of notice of violation to Wells and Wells issued on August 15th of 2025.
engineering on August 15 2025 City of Bloomington engineering staff found that the approved detour for
the sidewalk closure on the north side of East 17th Street associated with right-of-way permit number
ROW 2025-08-1855 was not properly executed by the Crider and Crider crews. Equipment including machinery
and a ladder were blocking access to the
accessible curb ramp on the northeast corner of the 17th and Lincoln intersection which prevented made
mid-block crossings by pedestrians. Excuse me. I reached out via phone call on 8 15 to James Ford of
Crider and Crider who was completing the work on behalf of Wells and Wells. Thank you.
Are there let's see first we'll hear from the appellant if that representative is here Yeah, my name
is James Ford with Crider I was talking to Zach
about the detour out in 17th. We had to connect to the water main out in the middle of 17th. There was
a lot of work associated with that. So working with the engineering department, we came up with a flagging
operation instead of a full closure for 17th. And it required the sidewalk closure there on 17th as
well as one lane of traffic.
When we assembled the sidewalk detour, we put all the required signs out in barriers and the specific
sign Zach was talking about was a sidewalk closed sign on the barrier instead of the sidewalk detour
sign. The backhoe associated, I don't know, I have pictures here I can give to you so you can see it.
But the backhoe that was blocking it was being used to backfill the excavation.
There's really no other way to get around to backfill the excavation without use of equipment There
the ladder was leaned up against the side that was used for safe access inside the trench previous to
the backfill operation Whenever I talked to him and he reached out to me here via text message. I can
give these to you I called the guys and we got it buttoned up and I told him that we'd do everything
we could to get it rectified the way I thought
It should be at least get everything cleaned up, get it steel plated. That way, pedestrian traffic can
continue travel without having the safety risks. And that seemed to be fine at the time. And then I
got a fine issued. Wells got a fine issued, but they would just pass it on to the contractor doing the
work. And then he seemed to say to me that we'd be able to get away with a warning other than a fine
since we have never been fined on any projects.
In recent history that I've been associated with In the city of Bloomington and we do a decent amount
of work around here so that's why I appealed the fine because I Thought we were gonna get a warning
and try to take the necessary improper actions to correct the situation And I can you and I can bring
you these papers if you'd like to see them I
Thank you. All right. We can open it up for questions from the board. I'll go ahead and start. First
questions are for Zach.
Come up I'm curious about the amount Was it $4,000? Is that correct? Correct and I looking at page Seven
in the packet it appears that it's because of a gradually Doubling fine, is that correct? Correct. I
Can you tell us about the incidents on June 3rd June 4th and June 5th and you know how they relate to
this. I don't specifically recall the incidents but we do have like a scale to where an original fee
will double up to seven thousand five hundred dollars. So you have your initial five hundred and it
doubles each time until seventy five hundred. So at this point they've received one two three.
Wells and Wells had received three other Notices of violation previous to this one Okay, so those June
fines May or may not have been the same site, but they were the same people correct same contractor
responsible for
overseeing the whole scenario. There's your subcontractors who are completing the work, but they are
overseeing by a general contractor, which in this case. Was it this property or was it different properties?
Some of those may have been at hub one, but they are, since Wells and Wells is the applicant for most
of these and the controlling employer, they receive the violations.
And can you speak a little bit to the testimony about conversation about warnings versus fines? Yeah,
absolutely. So one of the things in my training, this is about the end of my seventh month here. So
I've been doing a lot of learning and understanding the situations. So in some cases, a field specialist
may have discretion.
If this is the first interaction we have with a contractor, we may be able to issue a violation if the
situation dictates that. In this situation, that was a possibility, but because of the complex scenario
with Wells being the controlling employer and Crider and Crider being the subs,
Learning process for me, so I may have been spoken Ultimately, we decided to go with a violation because
of the history and Can you talk a little bit about? Immediate rectifying situation so I'm looking at
these pictures I'm noticing, you know, there's a there's a piece of equipment that's blocking the the
cross path the piece of equipment could be moved and
I don't know if it was actually being used or was just parked and you know it in what situations might
you say? Hey fix it. I'll be back in an hour versus Issuing a fine, right? Absolutely. This is a case
where a phone call and quick action could have solved it And I I am not sure how quickly they did but
I know it was fixed by the end of the day That is one thing to consider but you know
due to the history with Wells and Wells, I figured out that there was not a way to avoid that violation.
And the utility work that was being done, that was on the north-south street, is that correct? Not in
17th Street? There was storm utility
Work that was planned on being done. They did. Yeah, what you're talking about is Lincoln, but it did
penetrate into 17th a little bit was it East So this street cut was for the final water tap for as part
of hub twos construction they were required to upgrade the water mains on Lincoln 19th and Washington and
for not only their project, but they also provided new water main service to all of the perimeter properties.
And this was the final tap into the city's new water main for this new water service. So this was the
tap that allowed that new water service to go live to provide the water to all of the residences on
the perimeter of hub two with the new water lines that they had installed.
The main that's being tapped is 17th Street. What the correct the main that was being tapped is in the
middle or in the southbound lane so So yeah in the in the edge of the southbound lane Or in the south
side lane eastbound lane. Okay. Sorry Yeah south side of 17th eastbound lane that was the flagging that
was mentioned earlier the flagging on for the traffic on 17th and
Yes. So for for Zach when you witnessed this violation were the flaggers in place were there people
out flagging traffic. I think at this moment the lane closure might not have been active. I would ask
James that but I don't recall. This was just regarding the sidewalk detour that was not implemented
correctly.
but I don't recall if the flagging was active at that moment. Can I just interrupt? Kyla, would you
like us to send you the materials that we have in front of us
If it's possible to send them my email, that would be great. But otherwise, I can ask some additional
questions if I need more information. Yeah, at that point in time with the and Mike Runyon could speak
to it with CBU because he would have been around that. But at that point in time with the whole excavation,
being across the street, we would have started flagging early in the morning as we opened up the water
main. It was realized that there was only about two inches of clearance from the existing water main
to the existing sanitary. So with CBU's guidance, we had to tap that water main at a 45 degree angle
and burn a valve there.
And then turn it back 45 and over the top of the sanitary since there was a conflict there no other
way to get through that was unforeseen circumstances out in the middle of the road as well. Sure.
Thank you. Another clarifying question for Zach the signage that the sidewalk closed signage versus
sidewalk detour signage.
Was this the first time you had witnessed that was the first time you had been on site and notices was
a problem was it just it just happened to also be at a time when the backhoe was in the street. I am
not 100 percent sure on that one but ultimately the violation. This one is about the obstruction. So
the signage is just secondary and I think just a secondary conversation that James and I had.
Have a question for staff just for clarification the fine that was issued was it in total four thousand
dollars or was it that the last fine issued was four thousand dollars this this fine Would be four thousand
dollars and the previous one was two thousand So the total fine assessed as an accumulation of
So how our fines work is they're based on a three-year schedule There's different fines for different
violations And they start anywhere between a hundred and five hundred dollars and then double each time
until they reach seventy five hundred dollars They're issued to the permit holder in this case. It was
wealth and Wells So since they had previous violations for this particular
Line item of MOT violation. They were at the four thousand dollar level So that is why this violation
was issued at four thousand dollars And we're considering just that four thousand dollar fine not the
accumulation correct. Okay. Thank you. I Would like to quickly add Just how intensive the project was
there that we did and
in the coordination with CBU, tapping the main, flagging the traffic on that road, getting steel plates
down, flow fill concrete. It's no easy undertaking out there. And to backfill the excavation without
temporarily going across where the curb ramp is and pedestrian traffic, there's no real way to get that
done, you know, with the flaggers out there.
watching traffic, they're watching pedestrians, they're keeping everyone safe as they're out there working.
And then I can't tell you exactly why they went from that direction. I mean, it would be a common place
to backfill the trench from both sides as were the other way. So I don't see how else you do it than
how our guys did in the field. For pedestrians, was
Was there flagging that was happening during the time that this ramp was blocked? No, the flaggers are
for vehicular traffic and the sidewalk detour is what would be routing the pedestrians in the mid-block
crossing in this case. What would have been the correct solution during the backfill would have been
to place them at the
eastern most or western most ADA crosswalks instead of the mid block crossing. So we could have modified
the MOT according to the scope. Can you go back please and let us know how long in total that
Pedestrian crosswalk was blocked with the backhoe Yeah, I cannot substantiate how long that was it was
fixed by the end of the day James might be able to answer how I Know I could maybe pull my phone calls
and messages up But as soon as I was notified by Zach that there was an issue I called the pipe foreman
on site and instructed him to pull everything out of the way put the steel plates down make it ADA compliant
get a picture of it send it to me and
That way we can at least rectify the situation as best we can and see what's wrong. That way we could
correct it and not have the problem. Thank you. So this this process of them doing the street cut took
less less than a day. So it would have been less than a business day where they were doing this work
on this particular day.
That makes sense. Yeah Maria or Zack if you guys could speak to Contractor has to tap the main and it's
a it's a it's a Tight sites and they find that they're having difficulty maneuvering equipment Is there
a preferred or correct process
If this company were to come to the city and say hey, we got to get this done today But we can't Redirect
traffic in the way we originally thought we could yeah, that would be a scope change Yes, they they
could have called us. I think that You know Crider and Crider Did that the
the best that they could with the situation. Hub two's utility relocations have been difficult. They
went on longer, ran into every possible problem that they could possibly run into. They originally had
thought that this tap was gonna take them a day, half a day, and it ended up taking them three to five
days in total.
You know We Every time we've had an issue with them They've been very responsive in my experience to
Crider and Crider has been very responsive in fixing whatever situations that we have pointed out to
that I have pointed out to them through this process and
You know it It's a It's a very dynamic situation You know, this is a very heavy populated area They
were trying to get this done for CBU before the students moved back in They actually had more work in
17th Street that they had permitted to do that week that we ended up not allowing them to do just because
It ran over for the tap and we haven't allowed them to go back into 17th Street yet because we haven't
had a break in school. It's yeah. All right. Again I'm sorry to ask anybody to repeat anything but this
fine for potentially this one day.
ended up being $4,000. The accumulating fines are what made it to $4,000. But the fine for this in particular
was not a repeated offense. Correct. So because the permit is held by Wells and Wells, not Crider and
Crider. So Wells and Wells is the GC. They're the ones that pulled this right of way permit. But Crider
and Crider is who did the work.
if Crider and Crider had pulled this permit and Crider and Crider had gotten this fine it would be Yeah,
if they hadn't had it and and Crider and Crider doesn't have any previous violations it would have been
the minimum fine or Even potentially a warning because it would have been their first finable offense
But because the permit was issued to Wells and Wells, the fine is issued to Wells and Wells, not to
Crider and Crider. And the other fines associated with Wells and Wells with this project are not coming
before us. Not today. This is the only fine right now. And the previous fines, I believe, were all for
Hub one which is on North Washington North walnut where the China buffet was So that was a previous
project it wasn't even this project but because it's wells and wells, they're the permit holder They're
the ones that get the fine. They however have chosen to pass this fine on to Crider because Crider was
the one who was actually doing the work even though wells and wells and
the permit holder Question for staff and possibly for legal page I'm curious of what our The scope of
our possibilities are here is the possibility is it is it binary is it's only approve the appeal with
no fines or
deny the appeal with $4,000 fine or is there any place in between Hi, this is Alex Pratt with city legal
Yes, so if you look on page four, I've given the board three options but this is also subject to redrafting
if the board chooses so
So the first option is uphold this fine and uphold the notice of violation The second option is uphold
the notice of violation but reduce the fine to whatever the board thinks reasonable in this case Given
that credit and Crider Has not had previous violations with the city and then the third option is to
void the notice of violation and the fine
Question I have for I think engineering staff primarily It's the city's preference that the general
contractor be the permit holder for these projects. Is that correct? Yes But it is possible that other
people can be applicants and then if they are the applicant and
Sometimes we can apply the same concept to them And for the other Finds that Wells and Wells received
are we anticipating that other subcontractors are coming before us in the future or Wells and Wells
I do believe that all of the fines that have currently been issued to Wells and Wells have gone beyond
the deadline for appeal Currently so right now we don't have We don't have any open fines issued to
wells and wells other than this one currently So yeah, this is the only one that we have open with wells
and wells currently And so they've paid the previous fines
I believe so. Yes And they did have subcontractors that did apply for certain Right-of-way permits with
this project, but because this is part of the main utility relocations For the project as a whole Wells
and Wells applied for that permit just because of the size and the scope of
Was being done and there were multiple contractors that worked on the utility relocations
I don't think I have other questions. I have a certain level of frustration though that this permit
holder had several violations and you know I understand the city's intention behind the escalating fines because
They they're serious issues. They the reason that we have these permits and the reason we have
the Transportation plan is so that we ensure the safety and accessibility of these spaces So it's important.
I think that the city and the board is in kind of a strange situation with this request because the
appeal is coming to us not by the permit holder and
The appeal is coming to us by a subcontractor who is being told that they are responsible for the fine
Though they actually are not the ones who have been fined And the reason that their fine is large is
because their general contractor has violated the city requirements on multiple occasions So I guess
this is a question for legal and
Is there a reason why we have an appeal from a subcontractor when it was the general contractor who
was fined? Hey Alex Pratt with city legal again this probably traces back to the city code section I
Was looking at
It's actually in the proposed order. I think just a sec So a responsible party any person who whether
property manager principal agent owner lessee tenant contractor build an architect engineer Add individually
in concert with another causes maintain suffers. So the code specifically refers to contractor and
in addition with the engineering practice of associating the Responsible party with the permit holder
just points to wells and wells in this case It's possible to change that in the future if the code is
changed to reflect a subcontractor in this wording As a responsible party, but again that that would
have to be a
Clarified with engineering whether a subcontractor would need them to apply for a permit to be considered
the responsible party in this case We're just looking at the code and practice Sorry Well, my question
is why has the city accepted an appeal not from the responsible party the actual appeal did come from
Wells and Wells and
the actual paperwork for the appeal. The representative for the contractor that came today is Crider
and Crider if that makes sense. But the actual appeal is from Jesse Graber from Wells and Wells which
should be in the documentation in there. So he actually filed for the appeal. We're just hearing on
his behalf from Crider Crider and he is not president. He is not.
Are there other questions from the board? No. Is there a motion from the board? Do you need to open
it to the public or not for an appeal? I move that we I suppose we vote on this depending on how it's phrased.
That we uphold the appeal of notice of violation to Wells and Wells issued on August 15th twenty twenty
five. Was that a motion to that was a motion to uphold the appeal uphold the violation or grant the
appeal. Would you like to dismiss the violation or uphold the order. I'm sorry. What's the cleanest
way for how this is worded.
Uphold would you like to approve the appeal? So no fine. Okay, I will move that we Don't know the cleanest
way to do this there it should be the third option on the order to uphold
The NOV and assess fines regarding violation of BMC is that that's the question I'm asking Or would
you like to uphold and assess okay, I move that we uphold the notice of violation and assessed fines
regarding the violation of BMC 12.08 use of the right of way Second
All right. We have a motion in a second. I will call the roll. Crone abstain. Roach. No. Okay. So we
have an abstention a no vote for upholding the notice of violation on the fine.
And I vote yes for upholding the notice violation and the fine so legal So we have to have a majority
of votes yes in order for the motion to pass so the motion fails So will we entertain another motion
Yes, if you choose so there is no decision right another motion Yep, is there another motion? Okay,
I move we uphold the notice of violation Regarding the violation and assess fines of $500 second All
right, we have a motion in a second I will call the roll crown This is fine. Yes
Yes, and Cox Deckard no motion passes Thank you for hearing me out on this case and I just like to come
in Let's know that a lot of this stuff on non city projects, you know like other projects we work at
the city we have a project manager with the city and
Directly working with us on any issues that we ever have on something like that if they see something
wrong on a city street They address it it gets fixed immediately at least We've always fixed it immediately
and I assume anybody else would when they're told to on a project like this one with a general contractor
it's less working together not necessarily with us in the general contractor but more the city and the
general contractor and
It's less working together with the city and the general contractor and more just the governing body
Assessing and Marie and them have been great on that job because it's been you know, the job's been
difficult I mean let alone all the rock excavation for everything we've done there and the the amount
of pedestrians that go through there And connecting to old and aging infrastructure gas lines falling
apart out there I mean, it's been it's been a project and it'll be really nice for it to be done for
the city and
But it is a huge burden upon the contractors whenever we're out there working on things like this. And
it's just tough dealing with all those things as to a city project when you have somebody working directly
with you from the city to at least make sure everything's on the up and up and going in the right way
when it comes to that. But I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. We appreciate
the work that you do.
All right. Next up is petitions and remonstrances. If anyone is either in the room or on Zoom who would
like to make a public comment about something not on the agenda now is the opportunity to do so. And
if you're on Zoom you can use the raise hand function or the chat function to let us know you'd like
to make a comment. None on Zoom.
Seeing none. Next we have the consent agenda under the consent agenda. We have the minutes from August
12th of 2025 minutes from August 26th of 2025.
Resolution 2025-081, Canopy of Lights 2025. Memorandum of Understanding for Hopewell Commons between
City of Bloomington Parks and Recreation, City of Bloomington Utilities, and City of Bloomington Public
Works. Outdoor Lighting Service Agreement with Duke Energy for West 2nd Street from South Walker Street
to South Morton Street. Outdoor Lighting Service Agreement with Duke Energy for North Indiana Avenue
from East Cottage Grove Avenue to East 13th Street. Change order package number one with the ENB paving
for the North Walnut Street
resurfacing project amendment to preliminary engineering contract with Kim Lee horn and Associates Inc
for the Grimes at Walnut signal replacement project and payroll Do we have any items that need to be
removed from the consent agenda this evening? We did make an adjustment to the consent agenda for the
contract for tree trimming for the second Street modernization project at the work session to go forward
on consent and
So we will add the contract for tree trimming for a second street modernization project as well under
that consent agenda. Any thing else that needs to be adjusted for the consent agenda. Seeing none is
there a motion on the consent agenda. I move that we approve the consent agenda for tonight's meeting
of November 3rd 2025.
Second All right. Do we have any public comments on anything within the consent agenda? None on zoom
Seeing none we have a motion in a second. I will call the roll crown. I Roach I Cox Deckard I motion
passes Next we have new business first under new business is sidewalk and alley closure for phase three
of Poplar's redevelopment
Good evening, Kyle Wall from Engineering. F.A. Wilhelm is requesting sidewalk and alley closure on the
south side of East 7th Street between Dun & Grant and the east-west alley also between Dun & Grant just
south side of the property as part of the Poplar Street Development Project located at 400 East 7th
Street. So this request is to accommodate equipment and material movement for construction activities
with a planned
Extension of the current closure so from November 13th of this year through June 18th of 2026 Thank
you questions from the board None for me none for me Any public comments on this item None on zoom
All right. Seeing none, I will. Do we have a motion? I move that we approve the sidewalk and alley closure
for phase three of the Poplar's redevelopment. Second. All right. We have a motion and a second. So
I will call the roll crown. I roach. Hi. Cox Deckard. I motion passes. Next up, we have bike lane closure
extension for Poplar's redevelopment.
Kyle Ball Engineering again. Effie Wilhelm is requesting a bike lane closure in the same parcel that
I just described. So this is on the south side of East 7th Street adjacent to 400 East 7th. So this
request is a little bit tricky. So last summer, sorry, this summer,
We worked with them to get the bike lane closure set up with the expectation that we would have that
reopened by mid-November of 2025. So now that we're hearing the extension, engineering staff does not
feel that this is in the best interest of the public. The impact to the adjacent properties, the ridership
of that particular corridor is down. We have gotten public
Complaints about those that we want to make sure that we you know state that we hear and understand
So at this time staff does not recommend approval of this request. We do have some representatives from
FA Wilhelm In the room here if you would like to have any questions with them Thank you questions from
the board on this item And I would like to hear from the petitioner, please
going to give you some handouts. Same with you Elizabeth to help carry daily manhand project manager F.A.
Wilhelm Dylan rash assistant project manager Wilhelm. Those documents right there outline our scope
of work in regards to masonry across the north face of that building from right now at current point in time.
to its finish with just brick and limestone. There's also caulking and some more finish work that needs
to occur. Our proposal to the engineering department was to extend our use of the bike lane through
the month of February. The second page of that handout really outlines what is in effect a problem with
the bike lane and that's those very north faces of the building and the equipment that has to boom up
to our scaffold
A lot of that in order to do that it has to sit in the bike lane slightly or right up against it We
feel it's in the best interest of the public and everybody involved that we're not so close to people
biking running through that lane while we're booming up and moving material so close to that bike lane
and then To go along with that simply in the bike lane itself so
Getting us through the month of February with that work puts us basically on the very east side of the
building and we can manage a project much safer at that point. Without that space for us and contractors
involved it's a logistical nightmare. You have anything to add there Dylan in regards to that. Yeah
I've got some photos if you'd like to see them and if I can send you in any of this documentation via email.
Just ask we're an open book on the subject So the request is actually through February That's what we
had requested as an alternative We originally had asked through the month of June as an alternative
we feel if we are able to at least have that space through the month of February an official turnover
date of March 2nd
We could get the majority of that work that affects that bike lane complete and would have a much much
easier way of completing that work without disrupting the public right next to it. That'll be operating.
I looked at the agenda prior to this meeting. I saw some of the paperwork still says that June date
and that was our original request. But engineering department highly suggested to amend that.
basically our request now gets us critical path and You'll see that's on that northern most extent of
the project so we could work within the courtyards. I'll be at less efficiently but In terms of the
bike lane that spells it out Are we ready for questions Yes, okay
Would that end of February March 2 dates would that not only give you the Time to finish the majority
of the work that might impact that bike lane, but also get it cleaned up and ready for traffic Yes,
okay Would we expect if you do not have control or
Access to the bike lane after March 2nd and you need to do Still the easternmost part of the site Would
we expect that you would come back with a request to close? Part of Dunn Street to accommodate a crane
for the eastern side Yes, the eastern side of Dunn Street say separate topic to this we have an outline
and a timeline for all that work on the eastern part in regards to closing down the parking and
Along done right there done would still be maintained but that's the north side of the building. Could
you do within the courtyard as opposed to closing done. Yes. Thank you. You mentioned that June dates
would have been.
Preferable to late February. Can you speak a little bit about what? Compromises you might be making
or what kind of additional Logistics you're having to consider to do that work, but before the end of
February then expanding it to June The main thing is there is along that north face you're gonna have
scaffolding all set up and it's gonna be about 12 feet off the north face of the building so that
Areas along the north roadway, which is critical to getting not just masonry work, but the whole scope
of the projects work done It essentially blocks off the access to certain spots of the project If the
bike lane is not in our use With the bike lane we're able to have the scaffold up and also do some booming
up along with having traffic still flow inside our project along that north roadway without the bike
lane that goes away and
The preference of through June it just allows us to operate within the site more and we're able to lay
down materials inside the site In a quantity that's much more than what we would if we didn't have the
bike lane And then it allows less traffic on Dunn Street from our laydown yard That was the preference
through June just more operation within the construction site as possible But as an alternative at the
very least
with the north face of that masonry work getting done by the end of February we're able to maintain
a north roadway because the masonry works out of the way. I would add that maintaining the bike lane
in our use it greatly helps us with deliveries which is a hefty logistical challenge at this job site.
Can you speak a little bit about The your general timeline Are you ahead of schedule? Are you behind
schedule? How is this impacting? Total project completion The project itself is mostly on schedule the
main Scope of work that's behind schedules the masonry work the limestone production delayed us and
really set us in the position we're in with with masonry progress as it sits right now and
Then what the masonry pushes is a site concrete around the building especially the north face. Those
two items are what's being pushed and theoretically beyond schedule finish at this point is the masonry
and the site concrete work as it stands right now. Most all other scopes of work are doing pretty well.
Are there other questions from the board? None for me. Thank you. Are there any public comments on this
item? None on Zoom.
Is there a motion from the board? I Move that we approve the bike lane closure extension for the Poplar's
redevelopment second And do we need to add dates to that Sure, I move that we approve the bike lane
closure extension for the Poplar's redevelopment through the month of February 2026 Second
All right. We have a motion and a second. I will call the roll. Crone. Aye. Roach. Aye. Cox Deckard.
Aye. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next up we have Ali closure at 205 East
Kirkwood closure for northern alley for loading and unloading of trucks by service master. Hello.
Zach Bell engineering field specialist Service master is requesting approval to close the alley to the
north of 205 East Kirkwood Avenue for four weeks as part of restoration work for First Christian Church
This request is to accommodate loading and hauling of materials. The traffic control would be in place
from November 12th through December 10th there is a possibility of them starting earlier if masonry
work on the east side is completed ahead of schedule and
and the alley is reopened. Additionally six parking spaces will be also reserved through that time period
if approved. Sheena Nicholson from service master has supplied maintenance of traffic plans. Thank you.
Questions from the board. I have none. None for me. All right. Any public comments on this item.
None on Zoom seeing none. Is there a motion. I move that we approve the alley closure at 2 0 5 East
Kirkwood closure for northern alley for loading and unloading of trucks by service master. Second.
All right. We have a motion and a second. I will call the roll. Caron I Roach I Cox Deckard I motion passes.
Next we have road and sidewalk closure for work related to Banneker Center stair repair by LRT restoration
technologies. Zach Bell again engineering field specialist LRT restoration technologies is requesting
sidewalk and road closures one block west of 7th Street and the sidewalk on the north side of 7th at
930 West 7th Street as part of a project at the Banneker Community Center.
This request is to accommodate machinery for the placement of the limestone steps. The traffic control
would be in place from November 4th through November 25th. Additionally, several spark parking spaces
will also be reserved through that time period if approved. Eric Spangler from LRT has supplied maintenance
of traffic plans for all work. Thank you. Questions from the board.
At the work session we talked about the homes on the south side of the streets So I took a look at them
on Google Earth and none of them do have driveways One has access from the north-south street to the
west and the other has access from an alley a north-south alley but In the Google Earth picture it does
show their trash cans out on the street
So I would urge you to work with them on the where they should be placing their trash cans their trash
bins during the construction period Absolutely, and then also another request in the future for projects
with a maintenance of traffic plan We want to see that maintenance of traffic. Okay, we want to see
where those detours are Okay for the benefit of the public the assumption is that the nearest cross
streets Would include some detour signs. Is that right? Correct. Okay
Yeah, the sidewalk detours would be placed at the curb ramps that would facilitate easy passing and
have the indicator strips and stuff. Right. And vehicle traffic too. Right. Yes, we can play some detours
signs that would that would direct people around the closure. Right. Yeah, we could we could actually
see that on map next time. OK. Any other questions from the board?
None. Is there a motion from the board. I move that we approve the road and sidewalk closure for work
related to Banneker Center stair repair by LRT restoration technologies. Second. Do we have any public
comments on this item.
Yes, I'm Eric Spangler with LRT and I Might have miscommunicated but it's it's looking like it's gonna
be more December 4th through December instead of November So I just want to make that clarification
because the materials not gonna be available until the 24th of November So the dates changed to December
4th to December 25th, okay Thank you for confirming that
So we have a motion and a second with a date adjustment. I Will call the roll Caron I Roach I Was that
an I yes, thank you Okay, coxdecker to I motion passes I
Next up we have sidewalk closure for commercial driveway installation at 2655 South Adams Street by
a United rentals that fell again United rental is requesting approval to close the sidewalk on the east
side of Adams Street at 2655 South Adams For one week as part of driveway installation at Cornerstone
Christian Fellowship the traffic control would be in place for one week between the dates of November
4th and November 25th 2025 and
Venom fan you the applicant has supplied sidewalk detour maintenance of traffic plan Thank you questions
from the board I Have none The maintenance of pedestrian traffic is it on the west side of Adams then
the the closure will be on the east side where they're installing a driveway and similar to LRT's closure
We would we will send them at across Appropriate crosswalks to the west side. Okay and there's a good
sidewalk that you know, very compliant it will be a simple detour the the I Know the street there between
those two ponds. There's no stop condition. So you might consider the crossing to happen at the roundabout,
right? And again, please include those plans in the future
Absolutely. Any public comments on this item. None on Zoom. Is there a motion. I move that we approve
the sidewalk closure for commercial driveway installation at twenty six fifty five South Adams Street
by United rental. Second.
All right, I will call the roll crown. Aye. Roach. Aye. Cox Deckard. Aye. Motion passes. Next, we have
change order package one with Weddle Brothers for CMC Logistics Center. Good evening, Max Litwin, Deputy
Chief of Fire. This change order is to cover items that have come up that are needed for completion
of the project of those items.
About three percent is change in scope. Ten point six percent is unforeseen work for a total of thirteen
point six percent. A majority of these are related to soil on site that's unusable that resulted in
need for stabilization. Trucking out the unusable soil and trucking in usable soil that combined with
some requests here to UDO requirements for the entire Winston Thomas parcel is what constitutes most
of this cost you see.
from the board on this item just a couple so the Unsuitable soil what it just wasn't Was there voids
was there you know trash and things like that in there? It's mostly it's trash. It's dumping from over
the years I think that the extent of that wasn't known it went deep and there was really nothing we
could use so Costs were we tried to mitigate whatever cost we could through stabilization, but a lot
of it just had to be trucked out and
And replaced and the the UDO requirements briefly Can you describe that a little bit more those consist
of so part of that there's a couple parts to this but Part of it is that this has triggered UDO requirements
for the entire Winston Thomas site. So Items that maybe would normally be small become large when it's
the entire parcel. So that's that's a part of it and
Honestly, that's most of it. So I think we're talking about like sidewalk work on Specific items. Yes.
Sorry sidewalks islands in parking areas trees landscaping Things of those nature. Okay Thank you Welcome
I just want to confirm something we discussed at the work session, which is it appears there's a 20% cutoff in
to change orders but the 10.6 percent of unforeseen work we're told by staff does not eat into part
of that 20 percent. So we're only at 3 percent essentially due to the change in scope not including
the unforeseen work. That is correct. Thank you. Yeah that's figures pertinent to divide those numbers
out there. It is. Thank you. Any other questions from the board.
None for me none for me Is there a motion I move that we approve change order package one with Weddle
Brothers for CMC Logistics Center second All right, I will call the roll current. I Roach I Cox Deckard
I motion passes Thank you. Thank you. Thanks Next we have contract with precision concrete for trip
hazard elimination in various locations. I
Miranda Beaver of Public Works for Joe Van Dievander of the Street Department This is a service agreement
with precision concrete that we've used through our cooperative purchasing by board Contract this is
a Proposing a saw cut solution and not grinding for the city of Bloomington to remove sidewalk trip
hazards on sidewalks located in various locations
Trip hazards will be eliminated leaving a maximum running slope ramp of one to eight as permitted to
meet ADA requirements precision concrete services will correct one thousand five hundred and forty two
trip hazards and this is a continuous project to repair all the trip hazards within the city and This
service agreement is not to exceed the amount of ninety five thousand dollars Thank you questions from the board
Couple saw cut solution versus grinding so we're talking about instead of cutting down Lips and things
like that. We're taking out a section of sidewalk and replacing it, right? Yes. Okay, and would all
the work that's precision concrete be doing is saw cutting or is it just to allow for some saw cutting here and
Grinding there for these trip hazards. I believe that is a saw cut solution only Some of the other contracts
that you've seen come through from precision for those were grinding And you may see some come back
through for grinding It just depends on what area and what type of sidewalks currently there great.
Thank you Any other questions from the board none for me I
Is there a motion on this item? I move that we approve the contract with precision concrete for trip
hazard elimination in various locations second All right, I will call the roll Corrine I Roach I Cox
Deckard I motion passes Next we have staff reports and other business Miranda Beaver for public works.
I would just like I
If you could state for the record that I can use your stamp for signature for this as you are via zoom.
Yes I will state for the record that you can use my signature as my or my signature stamp as my signature
on the documents for this meeting. Thank you. All right. Next up is approval of claims. Do you have
any questions on the claims.
Any public comments on claims? None on zoom Seeing none is there a motion I move that we approve claims
tonight in the amount of seven hundred twenty four thousand eight hundred forty six dollars and fifty
seven cents second All right. I will call the roll crown. I Roach I Cox Decker I
Motion passes and seeing as there is nothing else on our agenda this evening, I will call for adjournment.
Thank you. Thanks, Kyla. Thank you.