I call to order tonight's meeting of the Board of Public Works for March 24th, 2026. First on our agenda
is opening of bids. I assume we have no bids to open. Okay. Next is messages from board members. Any
messages from the board tonight? All right.
Moving along, we will go to agenda item number three, which is appeals. And we have requests for appeal
of notice of violation issued to Wells and Wells on September 20th, 2025. From engineering. So just
to give some background on this, it will be appeal. So the summary of this would read,
Engineering staff finds that Wells and Wells had both an approved extension and advanced written notice
of the deadline of potential enforcement action as it relates to this NOV or notice of violation. The
roadway restoration work was not completed within the permitted timeframe and staff does recommend upholding
the notice of violation and the associated penalties.
So the right-of-way permit associated with this work was approved by the board on May 20th of 2025,
and then issued June 5th of 2025 for roadway and utility work along East 19th Street, North Lincoln
Street, and North Washington Street, all associated with the Hub 2 project. The permit included a phased
schedule for roadway closures and restoration work with a scheduled completion date of September 19th, 2025.
At the request of the contractor the board approved an extension. I'm sorry, that was a September August
12 for the first one, and then requested an extension to September 19, giving the final date for restoration
to be completed of September 19 of 2025.
Prior to the extended deadline, engineering staff notified the contractor on September 12th, 2025 that
the failure to reopen the affected streets and restore the roadway surfaces by the approved date could
result in an enforcement action. Despite the notification, roadways weren't restored within the permitted
timeframe. Documentation photographs associated with the notice of violation show that the base asphalt
did not occur, paving did not occur until September 20th through 24th of 2025, days after the approved
completion deadline.
With those thoughts in mind we support upholding the notice of violation Yes, I believe we
have representative of Wells and Wells here if you'd like to make a statement to the board or now would
be your time Yeah, Jesse Graber with Wells and Wells construction representing Wells and Wells and core
development
the owners. So first of all, I do actually want to thank Kyle and Zach and Maria and the entire
transportation board for working with us so diligently on the project. It has been difficult. We acknowledge
and do not dispute the fact that the project for the basically the public improvements of that block
through private development did to go past our permitted timeframe. I'm not going to take a lot of your
time. I just have a few bullet points here that I would like for the board to consider and transportation
to consider. We applied for a grading permit in the fall of
to the community that you know this road work was
I do just want to comment, and this is not negativity or criticism, but at no point in time during the
entire planning process was a restriction that this work had to be completed during a summer break ever
made known until we applied for the road permit. Had we known that the work being required over the
summer break was going to be a requirement,
we could have phased the initial project differently, but by that point in time, it was far too late
in the planning and process. So the road work being completed during summer break was a requirement
that came up when we applied for the road work permit. We acknowledged that our contractors agreed to
it, but what we did not anticipate was that IDEM would take
the full three months to approve the sewer permit. What we did not anticipate was the amount of rock
that was in the street. We beat out about $500,000 worth of rock to put those public improvements in.
And what we did not anticipate was the six days that the site was shut down to gas line leaks that both
the fire department and Centerpoint Energy responded to with emergency calls.
We would ask the board's consideration that the dollar amount of the fine be applied towards the improvement
of Washington Street from 19th along the west side of Washington Street that is not a part of our
Work-in-process or approved plans, but we recognize as a developer and contractor that the west side
of that street is not in a finished state Probably was not fully addressed by by Plan by our plans and
by the design of the project fines are
punitive to our subcontractors. And Crider and Crider, the subcontractor on this, worked six to seven
days a week, 80 to 90 hours a week trying to achieve this goal. It was not achievable by reasons outside
of their control. We recognize as a developer that we did impact the community as
As a compensation, we would like to use the money to improve towards an improvement of Washington Street
that has been brought up by transportation and by Maria and Kyle. If that is agreeable to the board,
we would be happy to buy that offsetting the fine amount towards capital improvement of that street.
I'll jump in here. You know, we wouldn't be able to just negotiate that on the floor of a board meeting
at this point in time, having no prior requests of that type. Does the board mind if I ask a couple
questions of the petitioner? Is that okay? So of the appellant, sorry.
You're stating that the holdups were with IDEM and others, and this will impact the subcontractors who
are working so hard at this. What I'm confused about is that we were working directly, that the engineering
staff was working directly with you and Wells and Wells to set the timelines for the extensions. They
let you know when the deadlines would need to be met. You know, how does that fall to a subcontractor
to be at fault? Why would Crider and Crider be at fault at that point in time?
They were present at the very initial meeting with transportation provided and agreed to the dates.
In hindsight, we would have asked that Crider and Crider pull the permit, but historically Wells and
Wells construction as the general contractor pulls the permit. They say that businesses pay no taxes
and businesses pay no tariffs. General contractors don't really ever pay
fines either, you know, these do flow down to the subcontractors that that's impacted. And we do,
you know, we're cognizant of the fact that, you know, they they put in the effort, they had agreed to
dates that were not achievable, but they were not achievable because of conditions that were hidden
and unknown at the time. Okay.
We've had construction projects come to this board in my 12 years that have known time and time again
that this community has rock under every road and that you're gonna have to beat it out and you're gonna
have to do these things as part of these developments. Based on what's been, what I know is the engineering
staff is working with Wells and Wells to try to set dates that could be achievable. We were certainly
hopeful this work would have been happening before the students return. Then we got into the football
season, kept trying to work with you folks to get it done.
quick fashion. Based on what I've heard, I don't know that we would recommend anything other than upholding
the fine as has been presented by the engineering department. I don't think this is one where we could,
given the timelines and everything else, start considering other types of, you know, trying to make
other public improvements and things. You know, I just don't see how that could be negotiated at this
point in time, given that it's
eight months after when these fines were issued and such. So we did the eight months past was not our
timeline. I'm saying since October, November, December, January, February, March, six months later from
when these fines were issued to start trying to think about other negotiated improvements and such.
I don't think that's a route that we well, that was that was an offer that was made to transportation
prior to the fines even being issued. Okay.
And the fact that it's six months later, we appealed as soon as we were notified of the fines. It was
initially denied. We requested again for the appeal. It was then reconsidered. And we're here at your,
we understand that we're asking for your grace in this situation, but had we not had gas leaks from
Centerpoint,
You know that did shut the site down for six days. We wouldn't be standing here. You know today we would
be within our time frames. And I certainly don't want to drag other city departments into this but you
know city Bloomington utilities was working in the streets while we were supposed to be paving. I mean
it truly was a
difficult Project with many unforeseen circumstances some very last-minute changes that was requested
by CBU Gas leaks that shut us down You know late permits by the state they all came together and you
know, my team did a
do everything that they could possibly do during those home football games to provide safe passage for
the students on the sidewalks, you know, all the way to the extent of snow fencing around the entire
site and providing, you know, safe passage on the sidewalks. And those sorts of things would be required
from any major development. I mean, that's beside the fact. You know, that's required as part of any
major development. You know, where I'm struggling with trying to make any sense of it is that
The petitioner was the one asking for the extensions the extensions got granted. Those were they agreed
upon dates You know the the gas mains and other things those are I don't understand how if if those
timelines are agreed to what different I'm just struggling to understand how that impacts what the contractor
Wells and Wells agreed to to have this road restored well if we have a
We did not have work durations. We had deadlines, which we acknowledge. We acknowledge. There's no question
about the fact that we had deadlines. Had we had those six days back from the site being shut down by
services, again, we would have met the deadline and beat the durations. Can I ask a relevant question?
What were the dates of that
and the associated shutdown? I would have to check, I don't have those dates with me, but I know there
was three separate occurrences with the fire department and CenterPoint for repairing gas leaks in the
road. Were they prior to the first extension request? That's what I was getting at. One was prior to
the first extension request, two were after. And what were the causes of the gas leaks?
The gas line in the street is one of the original old cast iron gas lines. It's extremely close to the
surface of the road. And as construction took place, any vibrations, we don't have a direct knowledge
of what caused them. They were not hits. They were not utility strikes. It was gas line.
the gas line itself leaked through deterioration of the existing line. I have a couple of questions
for staff, if I may. One question about the fine table. And if I'm reading this correctly, the fines starts
at the original amount, in this case $100, then it goes twice, then twice again. The fine table we show,
or we have, shows Lincoln $100 and then it goes to 400 instead of just up to 200, which would be doubling
the 100 amount. Why is it going up four times instead of twice? I did print out the Notice of Violation,
but unfortunately it's the wrong violation, so I don't have a direct answer without that in front of me here.
I can say that the process for those is an evaluation of an occurrence on a per day basis on a per block
phase. So if we start at $100, we should move to 200, 400, et cetera. This is a complicated site, as
Jesse mentioned. So for this NOV, thank you. Sorry, it's going from the top down. Yeah, so the formatting
we worked around
Obviously, it's not super clear. So yeah, those are violations of the same day, different locations
associated with the same project and the same violation type. Then it doubles the second day, correct?
Correct. And does this not quadruple? Or am I reading this totally incorrectly? It's every violation
by the permit holder. And so there were two violations on the 20th. So 100, it doubled.
200, next violation is a doubling of 400. So on 921, it became 400. Oh, it's not the 100 that gets doubled
to two and the 200 that gets. Right, so I just started with Lincoln as the first location for the next
following day there. So every violation doubles across the days. Is that, like, there are multiple violations
happening. It says the quick violations are twice the previous fine of two minutes.
Yeah, in code it dictates whenever we're looking at a closure request, it's per block phase. So those
are two separate occurrences on the same day for separate locations assigned to the same contractor,
if that makes sense. Okay, and I was reading it across, and then the Washington would be a second. Okay,
I understand now, thank you. My second question is the notice of violation was September 20th. The appeal
was written on December 11th, which is still longer than the seven days. Can you talk us through just the,
The appeal was initially denied. It's getting to us late. Correct. So there were a series of NOVs and
subsequent appeals that all came in in the same time frame. This was the first one of those four appeals
that had gone through. The dating was scant to support not hearing it. And once we got that reviewed
by legal, they brought it back to our attention. They said, hey,
what we would like to hear this. At the same time, as we were working through these multiple NOVs for
this particular site, we were realizing that we needed to improve some of our internal process on how
those are communicated to the developers and who and when and how decisions of the board on appeals
are then communicate. So not only how we communicate when they're heard and how they need to be submitted,
whether it's engineering staff or public work staff that take those in. So we've been working on our
internal process for this. So when, and Miranda might have to jump in to correct me when I say this,
when a notice of violation is issued, it gets sent directly to the parties that are being issued the
NOV. From there, the appeal says it should come to the public works department.
Sometimes the appeals at that point in time were going to engineering because the developers or the
permit holders were working very closely with engineering. Engineering issued it, and so there was just
some confusion on the dates and times of when each one was communicated about, and so we did just decide,
hey, we're gonna hear the appeal. It might not have met our deadlines, but given some of that confusion
since then, we've come up with an internal process of who communicates what when, including the decision
of the board when the appeals are heard,
how that official communication goes back to the appellants and such. So, yes. Yeah, it was a situation
where a letter was mailed to our office in Champaign, but it was over obviously Thanksgiving break.
So it literally was not opened. The letter wasn't even opened and received by our office until after
the appeal deadline had passed. And that's when
you know, we had reached out to Kyle and his team and and started that process basically the first of
December, which leads us here to today. So I have a question just about generally some of the factors
that caused your delays, because there are several things issued here about the delays that have been
caused. Were any of these items, did any of these items take place?
between the August 12th and September 19th time of the permit extension Yes, and which ones took place
during that time two of the gas leaks the city Bloomington utility work on Lincoln which was an excavation
of the street and then And it's not an unknown. I 100% agree. It's not an unknown but the continued
rock excavation that just
Was far beyond the borings that we if you recall we had a hearing for an approval to do 10 borings on
the street and you know, we had 10 borings on basically eight acres and it was not it was just not indicative
of the quantity or the height of the rock in those areas it
Even, yes, we've worked in Bloomington. I busted out $2 million worth of Rocket Hub 1. We know it's
here. You know where it's not? Under the garage where I spent a million dollars trying to find it, so.
You know Bloomington. It is, if you take 10 borings on an eight acre site, you don't know what's down
there. But you can't dig up the street to explore it either, you know.
So it was those three factors between the permit and the extension, but the extenuating circumstance
of the IDEM state permit being issued on July, which allowed us to begin utilities, was the driving
factor to the situation. I follow up question to... Manicure. The CBU work,
that took place between the 12th and the 19th. Were you aware that it was going to happen before the
12th? No. You thought all the CBE work was done? We weren't aware it was happening at all. They don't
ask us, so. It was work that was not associated with the project? No, it was not. So obviously these things
happen, you know, surprising elements happen. When engineering had the conversation on September 12th,
so this was a week prior to the expiration of the permit, my sense is engineering had a sense that the
project was not going to wrap up in time for the deadline.
What was that conversation like in the sense of, was there a discussion about a permit extension?
And if so, what was the result of that conversation? We had asked, we were told that it wasn't, that
an extension of an extension was not allowed. So while there was cooperation and,
And what we felt and still feel was an understanding of the conditions of the situation. I also understand
that, you know, if an extension of an extension is simply not something that's able to be written,
everybody's hands at that point in time were kind of bound. You know, I do, you know, just want to readdress
that, I mean, we poured asphalt
In in the rain. I mean we we kept the plants open for this project. The crews and the superintendents
involved in this did everything they could possibly do and and I I mean I live in Bloomington.
I live here. I'm on the job site.
every single day and there's nothing as the project director and the liaison directly back to the owner
in Chicago. I mean, there's nothing that I know of that could have been done that could have prevented
this situation. So, you know, we're not here to fault anybody. We're just asking for your consideration
in the situation.
I have a follow-up to a follow-up, I think. The CBU work, if it was not related to the project, do we
know if it happened prior to that conversation on September 12th, between the 12th and the 20th?
It did, and we were in conversation with Kyle and Maria about that as well. And I am not going, we have
a great working relationship with every department here. I'm not going to blame CBU for the reasons,
it's just,
Those are all of the reasons. I think it's questions for Kyle. Setting and negotiating timelines and
deadlines. There's been a lot of discussion about that late item permits. When a developer, when a contractor
permit holder comes and says,
This is my anticipated schedule. Do you say, great, we're gonna hold you to that? Or is there discussion,
negotiation? If there are extenuating circumstances, a late state permit, do they ever come back and
say, we need to reevaluate the timeline that we gave you?
Sure, I would say first and foremost, it's completely context-based. The approval of the original permit
was under the basis that we would be able to get it completed prior to the IU school year starting.
We saw the initial push to September from that August date and thought, you know, we can make this work.
And if I can be frank, this was a situation where we really just needed to rein the project back in.
the state of the road and I completely understanding there's not much space to operate there with, but
we essentially had what amounted to gravel roads on Lincoln, Washington and 19th before the intermediate
layer of asphalt was laid. And that's why we don't see 19th Street listed in the notice of violation
because we did have that intermediate layer of asphalt to make it at least passable for the traveling public.
I do not believe you were a part of the very original meeting that we had with transportation, okay.
These dates were not the dates we came and asked for. We were told no, it was dead in the water. We
asked for three months. We were given eight weeks. And that's not atypical for projects. Understand,
understand. But to your question,
It was, but we didn't have a choice because the sewer line and the storm line ran directly through the
project. The project was dead in the water without the reroute. And that goes back to one of my opening
statements. It's just an unfortunate confluence of situations, but the entire project was dependent
upon rerouting the storm
in the sewer around the street that ran through the project. And it was at our permit application that
the limitation of constructing all of that infrastructure during the school break was first made aware.
As a developer, we had no choice but to accept those constraints or the project was dead.
And we have no choice here either, but to abide by your decision. But again, without repeating, those
are all the factors that went into. And yes, it was a gravel street, but every single night and every
single morning and every single time a resident needed to get to their residence, it may have
been inconvenienced, I get it, construction,
tends to do that, but at no point in time was a resident ever denied to the point that we rented, bought
10 parking passes at the home two suites and gave them to a certain address of individuals that created
some cause for concern and paid that out of pocket for their parking.
parking and again, did everything that we could possibly do to make it as small of an inconvenience
as possible while it was a gravel street. I have a question for staff. This is a question I feel like
I should know the answer to, but I don't fully understand the nuances of the fee schedule. Are there
fees associated with this permit, like the issuance of this permit, any costs associated with the permit
for the contractor or the permit holder?
Yes, absolutely. So there is a cost associated with any excavation within the right of way based on
paved or unpaid surface that is going to be disturbed. There's a cost for every week of a sidewalk,
lane, street closure. So all of those are based on the timeline that's given to us by contractors. Do
you happen to know, and it's OK if you don't, this was not asked at any point prior, what the cost of this
permit was, like even roughly, but it's okay if you don't have that number. If you promise not to quote
me. I believe lane closures are $200 a week. Permit fees $100 for the review of said permit. I couldn't
even make a guess as to what the actual disturbance was.
I can say that, you know, once this extension came in and, you know, we were reviewing everything and
trying to play catch up to make sure that everything was driving from our internal systems. We did ask
that Wells and Wells, you know, paid for the extension and the time they went past on all that to which
they have done since then to their credit.
I do, yes. The original permit fee was somewhere in the $4,200 range. Since then, we have paid an additional
$10,000 in permitting for the use of the street during construction. So we're about right at roughly,
if you don't quote me, roughly $15,000 in permitting directly attributed to the streets and the street
use and work there.
And that was for the permitting for the dates of, let's see, June 5th through what ultimately was September
19th? In fairness, it's permits for the duration of the project. So it extends, it includes this period,
but extends past it, yes. Okay. Additional questions from the board?
All right, I'll make a suggestion and knowing that staff has approached wells and wells about the possibility
of investing this fine amount into other improvements near the site.
and knowing Mr. Graber is local. If it's okay with Mr. Graber, we'll table this for right now. And it's
not to say that it won't come back and come to the board for the same exact decision we would be seeking
tonight. But I'll give it the two week. I think we can give it the two weeks for engineering to discuss
and determine if that amount being invested in the west side of the road makes sense for us. I don't
know that it does. I'm not sure where things stand there. That's the first we've heard of it at this level.
I think if we can just do that for two weeks. If two weeks from today you could agree to be here again
and maybe at that point in time we can have this all figured out in terms of how to do that. But I guess
I'd ask you to table it for now and then we'll come back in two weeks with either an update to the board
on what took place or was agreed to or if we would ask for a final decision on the appeal at that time.
So just a motion to table. Is there a motion to table?
I move that we table the request for appeal of notice of violation issued to Wells and Wells on September
20th, 2025. Second. Hearing a second, I'll take the roll. Cox-Deckard? Aye. Roach? Aye. Caron? Aye.
Motion to table passes. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thanks. You betcha.
Next on our agenda is petitions and remonstrances. This is time for the public to make comment on anything
that is not on our agenda. Seeing no one in council chambers, if there is anyone on Zoom, feel free
to use the raise hand function or chat. All right, moving along to the consent agenda, we have minutes
from January 13th, 2026.
Minutes from January 27, 2026, Resolution 2026-014, Mobile Vendor Travel and Tom's Coffee, Right of
Way Special Event for the Tuesday Farmer's Market, Right of Way Special Event for the Saturday Farmer's
Market, Right of Way Special Event for the Bloomington Handmade Market, Outdoor Lighting Service Agreement
with Duke Energy for South Southern Pines Court, Public Improvement Bond Estimate and Street Lighting
Plan Waiver for Oakstead Subdivision,
Supplemental number three to construction contract with Crossroads Engineering for Beeline Extension
Project. On-call service agreement with Blood, So, Rigort, Cooper, and James for engineering services
and payroll. Is there anything that needs to be removed from the consent agenda tonight? Does the board
have any questions on tonight's consent agenda? Is there public comment on the consent agenda? Anyone on Zoom?
All right, is there a motion? I move that we approve the consent agenda for this meeting on March 24th
of 2026. Second. I will call the roll. Cox-Deckard? Aye. Roach? Aye. Caron? Aye. Motion passes. First
on the new business agenda is the Pete Ellis discovery transfer with NDOT. Good evening, Neil Popper
with Engineering.
This is an Indiana Department of Transportation project. It's on State Route 45. It includes the intersection
with Pete Ellis and Discovery Parkway, which is the city's infrastructure. The project dates back to
before the hospital relocation and identification of some safety concerns in that area. This memorandum
of agreement would temporarily transfer portions of Pete Ellis Drive and Discovery Parkway from the
city to NDOT.
for construction and then after project completion those roadways would transfer back to the city. The
memorandum of agreement also clarifies the city's maintenance responsibilities for the sidewalk and
multi-use paths that are being constructed in the area.
An aspect of this project that has gotten a lot of public attention is the plan to remove 15 mature
oak trees on the south side of SR 45 on Pete Ellis. We've had significant coordination with NDOT and
we are going to be able to save eight of those 15 trees. This transfer agreement wouldn't normally be
required to approve the tree removal that has been discussed a lot, but
we've been coordinating with our urban forester and typically that would be more of a staff-level approval.
But given that it's wrapped up in our discussions with NDOT and there's been so much attention on it,
we did want to bring it in front of you specifically just for that transparency, just wanting you to
be aware of it and that it is a part of this project. We discussed that at the work session yesterday
and noted that it would
probably occur any day now and today was actually the day that it started occurring. There has been
work out there today. I haven't seen it myself. I don't know the extents and for sure that they made
it into any of the city trees, but I'm guessing that they did. Unfortunately, the agreement that is
in your packet is still not final. We discussed at the work session that there's a typo in the signature
line. There's some language on the permitting and inspection that we've been trying to clean up with NDOT.
However, due to the time constraints on the project and in our reaching agreement with NDOT, we do want
to approve this agreement, at least in principle, and vote to allow a temporary transfer under the terms
as written, pending future approval of the memorandum of agreement in its final form.
This will allow NDOT to begin managing work that's occurring in that right-of-way, begin working in
that right-of-way, avoiding delays to the project. Staff is recommending that we approve the agreement
as it's written, allow us to indicate at least this high-level agreement to NDOT, and know that this
would come back to you again shortly in its new final form for the formal approvals.
Staff, that's what engineering and the legal department have worked out and support, and I would be
happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Questions from the board. Regarding the trees, since that
is an issue that has had a lot of attention and there's been a lot of conversation and compromise in
the way that the trees are handled. Is there a planting plan? Like, do you know if NDOT is
planning to plant new trees that don't interfere with the right of way. NDOT is planting a small number
of trees. I don't know that there are any planned replacements actually in these areas where the trees
are being removed, but we have been working with the Parks Department. One of the things that they have
said is that
The most important thing to them was protecting as many trees as we could. They had had a goal actually
of protecting seven or eight of them and we achieved eight. They also said replanting is what we would
typically require in a project and what we want. But what's most important is if we have a space where
we can replant, we don't mind as the city going back in and replanting some of those trees ourselves.
That's not a huge cost to replant them given that this is
or will become city right of way again, we'll have the authority to go in and replant some of those.
So the answer is there are some replacements, but not to a scale that we want. That agreement at least
hasn't been reached yet, but we do have the ability and the intention of replanting some trees there.
Very good. Not a question, but I just wanted to say these improvements have been a long time coming
and only exacerbated.
I can't talk tonight, by the hospital and changes in that area. And I think East 10th Street has seen
a lot of improvements with the pedestrian improvements further to the east on Smith. So thank you for
your work and thank you for everyone's involved in saving these atries. Thank you.
And just to clarify, this is kind of a phase of NDOT's plans for that whole area, so their project stretches
from the bypass to just a little ways east of Pete Ellis, and then continued improvements up past Smith
and further would be a future phase. Any other questions from the board? All right, is there public
comment on this?
Again, if you are on Zoom, feel free to use the raise hand function or chat. None on Zoom. All right,
is there a motion? I move that we approve the Pete Ellis discovery transfer with NDOT. Just a clarifying
question. Do we need to phrase that in a specific way, since it's not an actual contract approval, such
as the board approves the contract
concept of the of the transfer So in staff's discussions with legal we kind of asked, you know, what
would the motion look like and ultimately the answer was let's just approve it as written just pretend
It's a normal item just basically approve it but knowing that it would come back again in the future
approve but not sign Yeah, it's just not being signed. It's not in that case second. All right
Thank you for clarifying. I will call the roll. Cox-Duckard? Aye. Roach? Aye. Caron? Aye. Motion passes.
Thank you. Sorry, Miranda. Next, we have the contract with Sarah Road Mitigation Project with Echo Logic.
Hello, Sarah Gomez with the engineering department.
here to award the project for the Sarah Road mitigation. The project includes the removal and replacement
of 22 dead native trees and the treatment of woody invasive species at an IDNR permitted mitigation
site for a former city project from Buttonwood to College Mall Road.
Quotes were received at noon on Monday, January 15th, 2026. The quotes were as follows. Steve Chafin,
$14,655. EcoLogic, $35,395. Sorry, $35,395.47. And Habitat Solutions, $52,335.
Although Steve Chafin was the lowest bidder, it was unresponsive in meeting the city insurance requirements
for the quote, and EcoLogic was the second lowest responsible and responsive bidder, and engineering
recommends awarding the contract to EcoLogic. Thank you. Questions from the board? Question here. Sarah,
I'm at a loss. Where is this located? I'm a little confused.
Let's see, just south of where Moores Pike and College Mall intersection is at, the trail that comes
down goes over a creek, and there's a pedestrian bridge, and to the right-hand side, if you're headed
south, there is about an acre of land that has what looks to be dead trees and shrubbery. A little triangle
there at the lighted intersection? Yes, correct. And those were, that was a minute,
Those were a mitigation planning from another project. Correct. So the Sarah Wood Sarah Road project,
I believe it was in 2019, goes from Buttonwood to College Mall Moores Pike intersection. And that was
for that trail extension along there, including that pedestrian bridge, as well as it's associated with
I'm sorry, I'm forgetting the name of the street, but in any case,
There were a number of trees that were taken down as part of that project. And so the IDNR said we need
to have a mitigation site where we can plant other trees because of those trees will not be able to
be replaced in their current location. Great. Thank you. Yes.
Could you just mention briefly the project schedule, how long it will take for what phases of this?
I see it in the service agreement, but it says three one-day visits between April and November. Correct.
So they'll come in and it's a process of each item has to be taken care of separately. So there'll be
multiple times where they'll come in and they'll do their invasive species spraying.
for the kind of ground cover invasive species in shrubs. And then they'll have to do that a number of
times. And then they'll come back out for tree removal. And then they'll come back again for tree planting.
Yeah, got it, thank you. And we had talked yesterday during the work session about the fact that there
is a renewal clause in the agreement that if the work should have
should have to continue beyond the planned timeline that we do have the opportunity to renew for another
potentially additional two one-year terms if something was needed during that time. Correct. Great,
is there public comment on this item?
Is there a motion I Move that we approve the contract for say road mitigation project with eco logic
Second I will call the roll Cox Decker. I roach. I grown I motion passes. Thank you. Thank you Next
is the contract with precision concrete for sidewalk cutting Yep, Adam Wason on behalf of our Street
Division at Public Works. This is a contract with
Sorry, with precision concrete for sidewalk cutting. This is a annual project and contract that we put
out for sidewalk trip hazard mitigation. And we will have precision start this work here this spring.
The amount not to exceed is 300,000 and we'll focus on roughly 4,500 plus trip hazards in this contract alone.
Thank you, questions from the board.
I just wanted to voice that this has been a really successful partnership. We've seen a lot of improved
sidewalks for greatly reduced costs compared to something like a replacement through this. I'm amazed
by the fact that they're going to have the opportunity to correct the 4,500 plus trip hazards that's
going to make a huge difference for walkability. Just appreciate the city's work to make this happen
so that we have the improved sidewalks.
Thank you. Any public comment on this item? All right, is there a motion? I move that we approve the
contract with precision concrete for sidewalk cutting. Second. I will call the roll. Cox Deckard? Aye.
Roach? Aye. Caron? Aye. Motion passes.
Next we have the right-of-way closure request for Duke Energy on Grant Street, Dunn Street, and Sixth
Street. Hello, Zach Bell, Engineering. Duke Energy is requesting lane and sidewalk closures on Grant
Street, Dunn Street, and Sixth Street from 511 26 to 706 26 for work on IU's circuit loop. There will
be 10 total work zones. They have supplied traffic control,
and communicated to adjacent businesses and all affected people. I also reached out to them about the
reasoning for the night work and encouraged them to apply for a noise permit. Thank you. Questions from
the board. There was some confusion yesterday about the accessibility of the supplemental documents.
I don't see them on the drive. Was that something that I should be seeing on the track? Miranda scrolling
No, this is a section and I can take this section out the relevant materials included in the packet
section is a was on the standardized template And that is if if they provided those items that we should
have those However with the maintenance of traffic plan. It is a portion of the MUT CD that they normally
provide to us as Duke Energy so
What happened here is we use a template document for the accessibility of these staff reports. We should
have just removed that last section for this one and not included it at all, but then it looked like
it should have been hyperlinked like the rest of them. Yes, so that was on us. So that's part of the
kinks we're working out with this new program here. We talked about that in our coordination meeting
today, actually, so.
And I'll just add, so we talked about this a little bit in the work session yesterday. This is a major
project for Duke to, for the transmission lines that go into Indiana University. Starts in the alley
there behind Village Deli and Osterio Raggo, moves out to Grant Street, goes up to Sixth Street, back
over towards campus and down behind the Von Lee. Major project, we've been coordinating with Duke for
some time on this. They know they need to work with all the adjacent property owners, maintain access, work with
you know, work through all that. So big project in coordination, also with all of our other downtown
projects that we've got going this summer. So lots of work to take place, but all in the name of good
progress and such. So thank you. Did Duke Energy give an indication that they did believe that there
would be some additional noise, whether that be from the trucks or any kind of boring activity? No,
no, I only encourage them to do that because of the
time period that they did. I have not heard back from them on the noise level specifically with this
application. All right, yeah. And I think we had discussed the possibility that the nature of the closure
may not indicate active work or noise being created. But if they do determine that, it would be good
to have us approve. Yeah, I expect to hear back from them soon. Any other questions from the board?
All right, public comment on this item? None on Zoom. Seeing none, is there a motion? I move that we
approve the right-of-way closure request for Duke Energy on Grant Street, Dunn Street, and Sixth Street.
Second. I will call the roll. Cox-Dekard? Aye. Roach? Aye. Caron? Aye. Motion passes. Thank you. Next,
we have the right-of-way closure request.
and noise permit for City of Bloomington Utilities on Gates Drive. Good evening, Kyle Wall from Engineering
again. City of Bloomington Utilities is requesting road closure and a noise permit for starting around 7 p.m.
on Thursday, April 9th until Friday, April 10th.
morning along North Gates Drive, so pretty adjacent to the IU credit union on that stretch of road there.
So it's just a single night closure, no sidewalks are planned to be impacted with a detour route planned.
So that's just south of the roundabout there near Circle Prosko and north of, I think it's Whitehall
crossing there.
Questions from the board. Is there public comment on this item? All right, is there a motion I move
that we approve the right-of-way closure request and noise permit for city of Bloomington utilities
on Gates Drive I Will call the roll Cox Deckard. I roach. Hi, Korone. I motion passes. I
Our final item of new business tonight is a right of way closure request for A&A Concrete at 1307 and
1317 South Henderson Street. Zach Bell again, engineering. A&A Concrete is requesting sidewalk closures
totaling up to two weeks for sidewalk replacement at 1307 and 1317 South Henderson Street. I've spoken
with Angelo the applicant. His intended start date at this moment, which is tentative, is April 1st.
I'm also in discussions with him about finalizing the traffic control there. We're going to base it
off a typical application. He's also going to notify the local schools. The detour, the sidewalk detour,
will route pedestrians around the eastern sidewalk, via the western sidewalk, and cross at Hillside
and Henderson and Grimes and Henderson via the curb ramps.
Okay, thank you questions from the board As long as we're talking about packets and accessibility just
a quick question so in a case like this the staff report written in Verbal and if there are no additional
documents because nothing is accessible Currently yes
In our discussion this morning, we're going to provide more information on which portion of the MUTCD
that they will be using, making sure that we, in addition to duration, we get sort of a window of time
that they're going to be using. If it's an approval of something that you're approving a two-week closure
for, say, the month of April at some point, we're going to be including more of that information in
that staff report.
And that's where you'll see that come down. But yes, currently if we're using portions of the MUTCD,
if we include just one page, we have to make that page accessible. Otherwise we have to give you guys
the entire document in its entirety to not have changed the, to change the accessibility of that. So
you'll start to see more where it's just a staff report with an explanation of where that closure will be versus
a map of that closure at this time until we can. That's very helpful, thank you. Is there any public
comment on this item? None on Zoom. Is there a motion? I move that we approve the right of way closure
request for ANA Concrete at 1307 and 1317 South Henderson Street. Second.
I will call the roll. Cox Deckard? Aye. Roach? Aye. Caron? Aye. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you.
Now we're on to staff reports and the 2026 fiscal year sidewalk improvement plan.
again, Public Works. We talked about this some yesterday in the work session, but just wanted to bring
this for the board for official acceptance. So each year we have a certain amount of limited dollars
amount of dollars and limited resources towards sidewalk improvement citywide. For several years, we've
come to you with our kind of annual sidewalk improvement plan to identify the locations and the types
of repairs we'd like we plan to make in a given year. As you
Approved tonight. We have the $300,000 contract for trip hazard removal. We also have plans for as part
of our paving season to do operate updated ADA compliant ramps 122 of those. Over the next several paving
seasons and then
We also have trip hazard repairs that we've listed by location in the document as well. Beyond that,
we have a sidewalk assistance program for residents that are in income eligible areas of the community
development block grant geographic zones.
And so that's $100,000 that we make available for matching program for residents that are in low income
areas wanting to make sidewalk repairs that are their responsibility will help offset their costs.
So overall, we are
presenting this to you tonight as our annual plan. It is possible that some of this would get moved
into a subsequent year or if resources don't allow for a certain project to be made, we'll add that
to a plan for next year and update the board with that. Otherwise, I'm happy to answer any questions
and appreciate your support of all of our efforts here. Thank you.
Next on the agenda is the approval of claims any questions that can you actually if you're so inclined
We'd ask that you make a motion to just accept the sidewalk improvement plan. Oh my apologies The Paving
list. Mm-hmm. It's a three-year period. Yes. Is that typical? It's like rolling three years. So next year's
sidewalk plan will be 27 28 29 yeah we're working on three years we'd love to work on a five-year plan
but depending on any given winter and what road decides that it's going to deteriorate more quickly
than planned that changes year to year but yes that's exactly what we're trying to do in the the road
sections listed that's the
the blocks that are being paved and the number of curb ramps that are associated with those. Yes. Okay.
So for the 2026 paving list on the two 11 look there's 11 specific locations for paving there that will
have updated ramps in the amount of 44 total. Thank you. And one thing we discussed during the work
session was that these are all
repair sites and not new. Yes, that new will be
taken care of by the City Council. Yes. So sidewalk connections and requests for new sidewalks go through
a completely separate process. That's not part of our annual maintenance and repair budget. I'll just
reiterate what we talked about a little bit yesterday was sidewalk repairs and maintenance falls to
the adjacent property owner per city code as the responsible party for those. The one area where we
do make our investments is that one of the areas where we make our investments specifically is if the city
So this tree between the roadway and the sidewalk and the tree plot, which is city owned, if that's
what's causing the damage, that's where you're going to see us doing the trip hazard repairs. Those
are all going to be mostly all related to street tree related heaving of sidewalks and such. So that's
where we really try to focus our efforts and then work with the private property owners on what their
responsibilities would be. One more question for me, sorry. The maps that are included.
What are they supposed to represent? These are Sorry, I wasn't focused on the maps James I was focused on the
these these might be these might have been included by mistake okay sorry I was only focused on the
staff report trying to just look at that associated it does not associate directly with the paving list so
I will get back to you on exactly what those are. Those were submitted by Danny. Danny's not in today,
sorry. I'll follow up with you on that. The main point and the information that's most relevant to this
is the locations and the information located in the actual staff report. Thank you. All right, any public
comment on this item? None on Zoom. All right, now is there a motion?
I move that we approve the 2026 a fiscal year sidewalk improvement plan Second, I will call the roll
Cox Decker. I wrote I Caron I Motion passes. Okay. I think I figured it out But definitely follow up
for sure to make sure I think those maps are the locations in which the sidewalk grinding is gonna occur
So they'll go into those neighborhoods and find the trip hazards that qualify for remediation in those
geographic areas those
Those are some of the targeted areas. Yes, but I will follow up and make sure that I'm correct in that
response. Excellent. Now we will move to claims. Does the board have any questions on claims tonight?
Is there any public comment on claims? None on Zoom. Seeing none, is there a motion?
Move that we approve the claims for tonight's meeting in the amount of four million eight hundred eighty
nine thousand three hundred fourteen dollars and seventy one cents second I Will call the roll Cox Decker.
I Roach I Caron I motion passes and seeing there's nothing else on the agenda. I will call for adjournment. I