I am calling to order this meeting of the Board of Public Works this Tuesday February 10th of twenty
twenty six. If you are joining us by zoom then you have likely found the link from the packet to the
zoom meeting. If you are interested in making comments during the meeting you can use the raised hand
function or the chat function to let us know that you would like to make a public comment.
First up on our agenda this evening is messages from board members. Do we have any messages from the
board. Next meeting week I'm traveling for work. I'll be completely unavailable for the work session
and it's highly unlikely I'll be available for the regular session. Thank you.
Next up we have appeals under appeals. We have beacon builders appeal for notice of violation for a
cuff road closure Good evening Kyle ball engineering right away program manager So just a little background
on this particular NOV So we had a permit that was issued on August 18th of 2025 through September 1st
of 2025 and
So we had worked through all those nuances and on September 10th of 2025 We did contact the permit holder
the email to notify them that the roadway was required to be reopened no later than September 17th 2025
and then that enforcement action was possible after that date and
They did respond the same day and indicated that on September 18th that asphalt would be laid to reopen
that roadway So on the September 25th staff was able to confirm that the roadways still remain closed
beyond that additional approved permit date and Communicated that we needed a compliance deadline which
ended up sorry ended a in a no V and
being issued or notice of violation on September 29th of 2025 for failure to reopen that roadway. During
that period, we had a few complaints that had come in from public, some via you report, some phone calls,
just to note that they were unsettled by the closure extension with the location being adjacent to the
school there and also Meadows Hospital.
As part of that NOV enforcement action, an administrative extension was granted through October 3rd
of 2025 at the permit holder's request. This timeline also was delayed in reaching an opening of that
roadway. This additional time, sorry, rereading here.
So this was a provision within that notice of violation that we reissued an extension for that timeframe,
which was then granted. So that was stipulation there. So that was the first NOV that was issued for
this site. Sorry, that was all background. The current NOV that was under appeal is laid out in this
section. So on October 3rd of 2025, the permit holder
Submitted an additional request for an extension. However, that request was not approved because at
that point The closure had already been in place for roughly 53 days You know based on that 14 day original
request So staff determined that further extensions were not reasonable or consistent with good right-of-way
management practices Despite that approved extension which began or sorry which expired on October 3rd
The roadway did remain closed until October 6th of 2025. So that was the period that the second notice
of violation was issued for That is on the docket tonight You know we as a staff feel that we've worked
really hard to try and work with the applicant to Make it be known that when these roadways need to
be reopened and I know that there's extenuating circumstances sometimes that it might be outside of
the control but
Know that that thoroughfare is very important obviously with all the adjacent properties that it was
affecting So our accommodation is that we uphold Have you take any questions and I believe Thank you
Now we have the opportunity to hear from the appellant if the appellant would like to make any comments I
My name is Jim boar. I'm from clandestine Johnson and boar. I'm here representing beacon builders and
also here is a bill Evans from beacon builders We're here to appeal the NOV that Kyle just laid out
for you. I like to first Remind you what the purpose of the ud o section 2006 100 is for the
assessment of fines for NOVs, it's to punish bad behavior, to force compliance with the UDO, and to
discourage future noncompliance with people that aren't following the purposes of the UDO. Also, when
interpreting the UDO, the UDO itself says it should be based upon the clear and plain meaning of the
provision's wording,
the intended purpose of the provision, the general purposes ought to be served by the UDO, and there
ought to be consistency with the comprehensive plan. When you look at these facts, in this particular
situation, you will see that Beacon applied for and obtained permission for the road closure, so they
didn't avoid asking for permission. The road was
Finally opened to traffic in October of 2025 seems like a really long time to have the road closed But
did they just not work when they should have worked did they slow death? Work this thing. Did they not
pay attention? No what happened was they encountered a lot of unforeseen problems in the construction
Here's what happened
They found a fiber optic line. It wasn't mapped on any of the city's maps. Then when they did the locate,
locate didn't know it was there, didn't find it either. They started digging and there was a fiber optic
line. Nobody knew who owned it. They had to figure out who even owned it to contact the owner and see
if they could move it. Then they found a water valve. It wasn't.
On the locate it wasn't on the map either Then they had to move that so they had to redraw the plans
they had to go back to engineering ask if they could move that to a different location and then Redo
their construction based on that water valve then when they did the sub base the sub base compaction
failed and
and they had to go back and redo that. Then they found a second water valve. The second water valve
had to be relocated in the plans as well. They had to redraw the plans, go back to engineering, get
approval for that, redraw the plans, move some things around, and do some things differently. So all
those things led to delays.
It wasn't that they were just lollygagging around and not doing things. They found lots of problems
when they went to construct this road. They opened the road as quickly as they could. They got extensions.
They asked for extensions. They got several extensions. When they went back to get the last extension,
they told them, no, sorry, we've been getting some calls.
The last extension they got, they were waiting on utilities to be moved. Comcast, Duke, and other utility
companies were doing their work out there. It's like pushing a string up a hill. You can't move them
any quicker. And the utility companies were out there doing their work, yes. But Beacon, the people
that you're trying to find or that the city has fined,
excuse me, are not the ones that were delaying the work at that point. It was the utility companies,
and they had to wait for them to finish their work before they could finish paving and finish the work.
So what's the bottom line here? If you find the builder, you're going to make the houses that the builder
is building out there more expensive. We've heard a lot about affordable
Housing in this county in this city You're going to make the houses that they're building and selling
more expensive so are you going to Make it so that the builder doesn't do this again They did everything
they could they tried to comply they tried to be timely they tried to do everything that they possibly
could to comply and
But it just didn't work this time. And what's the purpose of the fine in this case? It's just not going
to serve the purpose of the UDO. So we're asking for a waiver. We think that it's appropriate in this
case to waive it. We think that the fine serves no purpose that the UDO would have that
Fine was set out for in the penalty section and that fine would penalize Not the builder in this case,
but future homeowners by making their homes more expensive So we ask you to consider that to take that
into account and not to assess the fine in this particular case to use your discretion and
to waive the fine and to say my goodness in this case the builder did everything possible. They tried
to do it. They tried to do it right. They tried to follow the rules but it just didn't work out and
it would not be fair. It would not be reasonable to assess a fine under these conditions. Thank you.
Thank you. All right. Questions from the board on this item.
I have a question about the fine structure. I don't know if this is for Kyle or Audrey, but if the background
of what you mentioned tonight is a separate notice of appeal, and we are only looking at the notice,
the NOB from October 3rd to October 6th,
why did the fines continue building instead of starting again with that October 4th date? Right, so
the fine schedule that's on the basis of this second NOV, so whenever we have a fine type that's a violation
of Title 12, we would double that fine for every occurrence for the permit holder. So the amounts are
based off that first NOV,
That first NOV, I believe, was issued late September, early October, and the appeal deadline was technically
seven days after. So that fine amount was based on that original fine. That original fine NOV has not
been settled yet. But the starting rate per day, essentially, is the same fine type as the earlier.
So even though we're considering the two NOVs
separately, that's why this particular fine starts with the full amount of 7,500 on October 4th. Okay,
thank you. Of course. And just to clarify some of those details, because I had similar questions, the
first set of fines that were part of the background issue, you said those haven't been settled yet.
By that, do you mean like
Was there an appeal put forward and the appeal submission denied because of timing? Or like what's the,
what's happening with that first set? Correct, so we had, like I said, that was issued late September,
early October. We got the actual appeal for that NOV with this actual appeal. So that came December
time frame whenever this second one
Issued so this one was within time as far as where we're at in the process with that first one. I might
have to lean on Miranda So any appeals that are filed after the seven-day time period are not seen by
the Board of Public Works Unless they're authorized to be seen by our legal department. So I only received
the set of appeal for the second violation that was within the time frame and
So the other appeals if if there was an appeal put forward for those those would be with our legal department
Deciding whether we will see those since they were issued in September but not filed for appeal until
December past the appeal deadline Does that make sense? Some questions about the timeline During the
timeline that we were
Talking about and the complications that arose during the construction Was there Good communication
back and forth was the city officials aware of the problems that the developer was experiencing So no
bill was in pretty regular contact with some of our staff members We were in a bit of a staff transition
at that time so we didn't have the
Linocyte to it that we would typically have or would want to have So that's why we came in when we did
and you know wanted to give the opportunity to correct with these deadlines And offer those administrative
extensions things of that nature and then you know, so the submissions are sorry the Extensions that
were granted were based off the dates that Beacon was giving us Just a follow-up to the the
that were laid out, the fiber optic line, the water valves, are those atypical or do you see those sorts
of things in construction projects often? So those are fairly common, I'll say. Really the tough part
of it is do we, and just thinking grand picture here, if we're looking at a build out of a new development
or a redevelopment of something like that nature,
Ideally we're relocating all those utilities well ahead of time of that structure or that road new roadway
being built in that area So that's what we ran into we were kind of doing two things at the same time
So some of that goes into project management, but there are unseen circumstances fairly common You're
welcome to approach the microphone and you can state your name and offer your response I like
Thank you. My name is Bill Evans. I'm with Beacon Builders. Just real quick. We started working with
Duke January of 2025 on the relocation of the power. We have been working with Duke for a year and a
half to get power to our facilities or to our subdivision today. Tomorrow they're going to have it in
line. They finally got it done. So we started working with them.
Long and even when the road was open it has taken us from October to February To get them to give us
power and we believe me. I'm not the type of person to let things go and and we've tried our best to
do that the communications with AT&T was really good. They helped us out. They moved things right along
they offered Comcast to move their lines while they were there and
Comcast rejected and held us up for three weeks And we had to pay them their $18,000 to move their lines
off the poles We started the if Duke would have been in there the way they were supposed to they would
have had it done a month before we started Duke went to North Carolina on an emergency because of the
hurricanes and the thing they left for three weeks and didn't come back We had no control over that
Tried and I just wanted to point it out that That problem was 90% of the time and had we'd wait till
they got back to open up to start the road We wouldn't be out building homes right now We'd be another
three months down the road and we couldn't do that because we started the process in December of 2024
and we're now two years later starting to build homes, so Thank you for your time
Do have a question while you're here What was the first date you requested an extension of that road
closure to city? Kyle's correct. It was It was after the second week time period on the 25th Okay. Yeah
his time his time his timelines are correct the But we we did have Phil Peden
And a lot of your managers out on site that day that something happens to help us work through these
problems. But with the fiber optic line, with water valves, with storm sewers that needed to be fixed,
we just had so much going on. We also kept the sidewalk open the whole time that we were working for
individuals to walk. That was never shut down or closed while we were working. And I did speak with
some neighbors while we were out there.
And I did get one or two phone calls but I didn't get and I did speak with the dispatcher Scott with
the schools. So we had we were in constant communication. However my name was on the notice of the public
notice that was sent out with my phone number and my email. So we responded to anything that we could.
Thank you. Thank you.
I have another question for Kyle, if I may. You mentioned in the staff report that the extension, the
administrative extension that was granted through October 3rd was explicitly tied to the original NOV.
Can you explain a little bit more of that? Yes, yes, sorry. I was trying to recollect there.
Whenever we write an NOV, if there's some corrective action that we're needing to have done, along with
the issuance of the actual fines themselves, there might be a list of items of special provisions, if
you will, things that we need to remediate the situation and consider those closed out. As part of that,
we requested a new timeline to be added to the existing permit. Sorry, with no recusal of the fines that had
Amassed since then correct. Okay. Thank you along along the same lines I'm curious what Consideration
you gave or the city gave in terms of the second request for extension and if you could explain a little
bit about the nature of the complaints that you did receive from the public and how this Closure might
have impacted them
Yeah, so the complaints that we received were basically just in consideration of the location.
As we know, that's a pretty used thoroughfare with the high school and with the hospital there. So those
complaints came in via at least one year report and a couple of phone calls over the course of that
closure. And those were stemmed off of whenever we look into the
Our mapping system of our closures that are you know emergency services school system all of those use
that same mapping system? The original closure date had surpassed that noted date in that system. I
Guess what I'm asking is in what sort of sick situation might you have granted that additional extension? It's very
Context-based I'll say you know in this case. We knew that the extension had already been granted previously
We were well passed that original 14-day window and in reality we need Those things to be called out
early and often in these large complex projects ideally we're looking at the entire list of utility
relocations and
How that timeline interacts what the critical path is to getting all those done to where the work for
the actual development can start? Adam's on go ahead
Sorry, if I may. Apologies, I'm not in person tonight. I did not want to spread any germs around the
room. And just wanted to kind of make a couple comments here. Public Works Director for the City of
Bloomington and Mr. Evans, we haven't met yet. I apologize that we haven't met. Just wanted to make
a couple comments here real quick. You know, these situations are difficult to navigate and manage.
As the opponents kind of talked about,
challenges with the utility relocation utility relocations unforeseen site conditions, etc. I think
Kyle made some good points there right towards the end about how, you know, trying to, you know, unforeseen
circumstances are one thing, but with the utility relocations, you know,
With all of the developments we have around the city. We consistently hear about some challenges with
utility relocations and timelines not matching up with what developers want. Want to need for their
developments compared to what the utility companies are able to provide. So that's, you know, something
that It's a challenge across the board. And our hope is that when we get to the point that we're actually
going to be closing city streets is that
that's going to be taken into account and figured out well in advance of that closure to do their streets
themselves. The other part I want to make here point I want to make here and I always try to make comment
about you know staff some difficult positions here in the sense that you know the attorney for
The appellant was referring to some UDO, Unified Development Ordinance standards and such. We have a
lot of standards in city code that we're asked to uphold as city staff members. And Kyle and the team
in engineering do a fantastic job of trying to understand site circumstances and other things while
trying to protect the public's use of the right-of-way as well. So that's the challenge here.
I'm struggling on how to go about this one and how to advise the board. In the end, we had a road that
was closed for an extended period of time beyond what was permitted. That's why the NLDs were issued.
You've heard from Mr. Evans that hurricanes in North Carolina can affect things in Bloomington, Indiana.
Absolutely.
you know, that's part of the challenge with these developments and such. I do want to also make one
comment here and just make note that, you know, I apologize, I did not catch the attorney's name, but,
you know, the notion that, you know, fines like these are going to lead to higher home prices for the
people that will eventually move into these homes. I got to, I understand that that,
correlation could be made, but I also want to be very cautious to say we have these parts of city code
and these fine structures in place to make sure that we are
be able to hold developers accountable, hold people that are using the public right-of-way accountable.
And to make a comment about affordability, I don't know that that can be the correlation to be made
there, or if I appreciate that correlation in that sense. We're tasked with also trying to balance the
public's use of the right-of-way with trying to assist developers and others that are trying to build
homes in the community. Yes, we all recognize we want more housing at an affordable price and such,
but I want to be cautious
just with that argument. I do defer to the board here. You know, I don't know if we, if I would, I defer
to the board here on the decision based on what's been supplied to you this evening and appreciate all
the consideration that goes into these tough decisions. Thank you. I do have one other just clarifying
question. It's already been asked, but I wanna just make sure I have
total understanding. The way that the fine schedule is assessed is based on the permit and the permit
holder. So when a permit holder has a permit, the fine is assessed on day one and it continues to accumulate
across those days. Even if the property comes into compliance or the right of way comes into compliance
and then goes out of compliance,
because it's based on the same permit, the fee schedule continues based on that permit and permit holder.
I just want to make sure I fully understand. It looks like we have legal interpretation. Yeah, so I
just wanted to make a clarification real quick. So even though this situation happened within
the subdivision, the NOV was issued under Title 12.
which guides the right-of-way closure and the permit structure that goes with that. And so under Title
12, let me just read it, any violation as defined herein is hereby declared a common and public nuisance.
So the way the penalties and
Violations are assessed under the UGO and Title 12 is different. So I just want to make sure the board
is cognizant of that distinction. And then as far as the penalty is concerned, so if you look at the
code, a penalty is not tied to a permit. It's tied to the number of violations that this contractor
has committed over a three-year period. So regardless of whether the previous violation happened under
a different permit,
the code looks at how many violations were there before that, before the clock sets again after the
three year period. Okay. So it's based on a three year period of the, um, I mean, in this case contractor
or permit holder, not associated with the permit, but correct. It could be for this location or it could
be for another location. It doesn't matter. Okay. And under different permits as well. Okay.
That's, thank you, that is exactly what I needed to understand. I appreciate it. Other questions from
the board?
If I may, I'm going to just jump in one more time here. Adam Wason, again, Public Works. I was trying
to ask Audrey over email. I'm not sure on these appeals. We don't have too many of these come to the
board. So in terms of logistically, is it possible to table this decision for the time being to have
some further negotiations and conversations with the developer about this specific NOV?
Or is it one where the board is with it being publicly noticed? Is there a decision required today?
Does the board have the power to table? Hi, Audrey Brittingham city attorney. Yes, I agree that the
board can table it Alex agrees with me as Well, so I think that's totally within the board's authority Thank you
All right without being next to Kyle to ask him if he's okay with this I guess I'd ask the board to
table this one for right now while we have some further negotiations discussions about this specific
fine And then if we needed to we can bring it back at a subsequent meeting Thanks for that recommendation
any questions from the board All right, do we have a motion from the board I Move that we table the
appeal in front of us the beacon
Builders appeal for notice of violation for Acuff Road closure until further discussion and potentially
a future meeting as suggested by Adam Wason. Second. All right. We have a motion in a second. I will
call the roll. I broach. Hi. Cox Deckard. I motion passes.
Next up, I should mention we did make an agenda change. We're moving the item election of officers to
the end of the agenda. So we will take that up at the end of our agenda. Thank you. Have a good evening.
Next up, we have petitions and remonstrances. This is an opportunity for anyone to make a public comment
about something that is not on our agenda this evening. If you'd like to make a public comment about
something not on the agenda, and if you are on Zoom, feel free to use the raised hand function or the
chat function to let us know. If you're in the room, you are welcome to approach the microphone.
None on Zoom. All right, seeing none.
Next is the consent agenda. Under the consent agenda are the minutes for November 3rd of 2025, the minutes
from November 18th of 2025, resolution 2026-010, mobile vendor Blooming Bowls, right-of-way special
event candy stripe criteria, service agreement with Steve Chafin for right-of-way weed management, outdoor
lighting service agreement with Duke Energy for South Jackson Street and South Rogers Street,
Change order package for Thornton Arden Washington traffic calming and Greenway project and payroll.
Do we have any items that need to be removed from the consent agenda this evening. Do we have any public
comment on anything within the consent agenda this evening. None on zoom. All right. Seeing none is
there a motion. I move that we approve the consent agenda for tonight's meeting of February 10th 2026 second.
I will call the roll Caron. I roach hi Cox Deckard. I motion passes Next we have new business first
under new business is approved right-of-way closures for FA Wilhelm at the Poplar's development Good
evening Kyle ball right away permitting program manager once again
Apologies for another wordy request tonight, so I'll just get after it So FA Wilhelm is requesting sidewalk
closures metered parking reservations and alley closures surrounding the former Poplar's building located
at 400 East 7th Street This request includes the eastern sidewalk and the adjacent parking lanes on
North Dunn Street the southern sidewalk at East 7th Street and the East West alley between East 6th
and East 7th Street
The requested closures are being requested to accommodate the completion of the exterior facade work,
which includes the masonry cleaning and ceiling Followed by sidewalk reconstruction and perimeter landscaping
along the east side of the Poplar's building there on Dunn Street So the traffic control on North Dunn
Street is proposed to be in place from February 23rd of 2026 through July 17th 2026 the traffic control
in East 7th Street and within the East West Alley
Between East 6th and 7th Street would have remained in place until July 27th 2026 to support the final
Concrete work and landscaping associated with the project completion. So January, I'm sorry July 27th
of 2026 is the estimated completion date for the project
So city staff did meet with FA Wilhelm to review the scope of work associated with this request And
to evaluate if there were any alternate options available that would include pedestrian diversions Or
and or roadway closures and based on the review The staff determined that the proximity of the worksite
to the pedestrian facilities could create just undesirable interactions between the work area and that
passing traffic
During the same meeting we did discuss the anticipated timeline for reopening the 7th Street bike lane
And I'm happy to announce that that is on schedule to reopen on March 3rd At the time at this time the
only remaining Expected right away request would surround Grant Street on the west side of the building
Where we're going to have a mirror of kind of what we're doing or what's being requested now the final
infrastructure rebuild and demo Obviously not in that order So we're expecting that request to come
in at a later date that's the long and short Thank you, of course questions from the board on this item
We expect that additional request that you mentioned Would go through only July 27th, 20 correct. Yes Thank you
We talked about this quite a bit during the work session. I don't have a lot of questions. I would just
ask, is everything going okay, just generally speaking on the project? Like, communication's going well?
Yes, yes. Yeah, happy to speak to that. So I will say, like many projects, at the onset of the project,
you know, we had issues that we had to work out. Unforeseen site circumstances, unforeseen interactions,
things of that nature.
FAA Wilhelm has been great to work with and honestly, we point to them in their site to other contractors
as a good case of what to do, right? Any public comment on this item? None on zoom Seeing none is there
a motion I move that we approve the right-of-way closures for FAA Wilhelm at the Poplar's development
Second. All right. I will call the roll crown. I I
Roach hi Cox Deckard. I motion passes Next we have contract addendum to CGR services contract for economic
and sustainable development Department bus stop project to build additional bus stops Hello
Audrey Brittingham I'm here for Shawn Mia from the economic and sustainable development department who
couldn't be here tonight I
This is a contract to add an additional stopped bus stop Shelter to an existing project so CGR has a
contract already with the ESD with ESD to install five bus stop shelters and ESD had an additional bus
stop shelter and
Ready to be put in place. They hadn't secured a location yet. So they worked with transit They subsequently
after entering into the initial contract secured a location We determined that the cost to install it
would exceed a 20% change order So they issued an additional bid in CJR came in yet again as the lowest
responsive and responsible bidder So this is a contract to for them to install a sixth bus stop shelter
Thank you. Thank you questions from the board Just to reiterate from yesterday's work session The other
bus stops are coming along. All right, and you're pleased with the way You're working with this particular
contractor That's what that is my understanding from director Mia. Yes, that's correct. Thank you Any
public comments on this item
None on zoom. Seeing none is there a motion. I move that we approve the contract addendum to CGR services
contract for economic and sustainable development department bus stop project to build additional bus
stops. Second. All right. I will call the roll. Caron I Roach I Cox Deckard I motion passes. Next we
have contract with Jack Laurie group for animal care and control cat room floor replacement.
Miranda Beaver Public Works for the Public Works facilities director JD Boruff the flooring in the cat
room at Animal Care and Control is in need of removal and replacement and three quotes were solicited
Bounds flooring incorporated came in at twelve thousand fifty two dollars carpets plus came in at nine
thousand nine hundred and seventy seven dollars and twelve cents Jack Laurie floors LLC came in at seventy
five hundred dollars
The large difference in the quoted prices comes down to the use of contracted installation, which is
utilized by the two higher quotes and Jack Laurie group does in-house installation. So that would be
the difference in those quoted prices there. So the stack recommends the approval of the contract with
Jack Laurie floors. Thank you. Questions on this item. Any public comments on this item.
None on zoom. Seeing none is there a motion. I move that we approve the contract with Jack Laurie group
for animal care and control cat room floor replacement. Second. All right. I will call the roll. I Roach
I Cox Deckard I motion passes. Next is staff reports and other business. We do not have any at this
time. Thank you.
Next is approval of claims. Are there any questions from the board on the claims this evening? Any public
comments on claims? None on Zoom. Seeing none, is there a motion on claims? I move that we approve claims
this evening in the amount of $4,718,073.67. Second.
All right, I will call the roll. Caron? Aye. Roach? Aye. Cox-Dekard? Aye. Motion passes. Next up we
have the election of officers. It is that time of year to select our officers for the Board of Public
Works. I would like to make a motion that we elect Elizabeth Caron as president
uh, Kyla Cox Deckard as vice president and James Roach as secretary. Do you need a second for that?
I would love to second that. Thank you. We have a motion of second. I will open it up in case there
are any members of the public who would like to comment on these officers. We do not have any members
of the public on zoom at this time.
Excellent. All right. Seeing none. We have a motion in a second. I will call the roll. Caron broach.
Hi. Cox Deckard. I motion passes and we have nothing else on our agenda. So I will call for adjournment.
Thank you.