Okay, it's five o'clock. We'll call our meeting to order of the City of Luma Utilities Services Board
for August 24th. And just to remind everyone that our mission at CBU is to enhance the quality of life
in our community by providing safe, sustainable and high quality drinking water, wastewater and stormwater
services in a cost-effective manner, promoting public health, economic vitality,
and environmental stewardship. And our vision is to be the leading municipal water utility organization
in Indiana. And with that, our first item on our agenda is petitions and communications, which today
includes a formal appeal of service denial at 3704 South Judd Avenue. And is there somebody here to
discuss that project?
doesn't look like it well I'll tell you what we will we will move that to the possibility of the end
of our meeting for another petitions and communications time period and then the next item is approval
of the minutes of our previous meeting on August 10th 2026 everybody had a chance to review the minutes
Nicely done. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Okay. The minutes are approved. Next is approval of our
standard invoices totaling $1,237,062.59. Any questions on the
Invoices. Yeah, Steve. Yeah, Chris. Jim. I noticed that there's a fee of a hundred plus thousand dollars
for legal fees for when it's women. How's that coming? Hi, Chris Wheeler with City Legal.
I can tell you procedurally that there is a great deal of discovery that is ongoing at the moment. And
we conducted mediation that the court has received word was unsuccessful. And we are trying to reschedule
the trial date
for some time possibly in March. It was supposed to occur in November, but because of additional discovery
efforts, differences of opinion between the parties, which occurs quite often regarding discovery, everybody
has come to an agreement grudgingly that perhaps the trials should get moved out to some time more like
March. So that's the timeframe we're looking at at the moment.
for a trial date. Doesn't mean that we couldn't still find a way to reach a solution for agreement and
resolve the matter before trial. That may still happen, but at the moment, we're just right in the middle
of discovery and trying to move forward with depositions of all the key witnesses, and that's where
we are right now. The more time, the more legal fees, the more legal fees, the less it's likely
We're going to get a not going to see is. Yeah, you see some Nick. You see how you'll see. The nice
thing is that the statute does provide for the opportunity for the court to award us our legal fees,
so we do have that. We do have that opportunity. Hopefully as we move through the negotiations. Sure.
Anything else on that item?
Okay, other questions about our invoices for today? I move that we approve the standard invoices. Second.
Moved and second to approve standard invoices. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? All right, standard
invoices are approved. Next is our utility bills for August 13th. 8,200
$19.24. I move that we approve the utility bills for August 13th. Second. I move and second. All in
favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? All right. Motion carries. Then next round of utility bills for August
20th, $1,861.10. Any questions there? I move that we approve the utility bills for August 20th.
Second. Moved and seconded for approval of utility bills. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? All right.
Next are our wire transfers. Totaling $562,000. $562,598. I move that we approve the wire transfers. Second.
Moved and seconded to approve the wire transfers. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? All right. Wire
transfers are approved. Next are customer refunds in the amount of $2,920.72. Questions for the refunds?
We're clearing out some inactive accounts and others. I move that we approve the customer refunds. Second.
It's been moved and seconded. Do I hear any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? All right.
Refunds are approved. Next is the special check run totaling $7,215.92. Any questions on those? I move
that we approve the special check run. Second. Moved and seconded. All in favor say aye.
All right, special check run is approved. All right, we have consent agenda, and who'll be presenting
that this evening? All right, Matt. I'm gonna present the consent agenda this evening with three items
totaling $18,816.83. The first one was with Macalester for $4,273 to do some generator repairs at Butcher.
The second is another Macalester for $2,543.83 to work on the block heater or to replace the block heater
for the West booster generator. And the final one is with KLM Engineering for $12,000 for tank inspections
at Monroe Treatment Plant and our Dilman Treatment Plant. Would any board member like to pull any of
these items from the consent agenda and discuss them individually?
Hearing none, if there's no objection, then the consent agenda will be approved as presented.
Hearing none, the consent agenda is approved, thanks. All right, thank you, Matt. Item six on our agenda
is requesting approval of an agreement, a water supply contract agreement with the state of Indiana.
Good afternoon, Chris Wheeler with City Legal,
The contract before the board is the renewal, essentially, it's the renewal of the existing Monroe water,
Lake Monroe water removal contract that we have with the state of Indiana. We have asked the state to
modify the agreement slightly. The terms that we have asked
to be modified are the amount of water that we can withdraw per day from the lake. The existing contract
is for 25 million MGDs per day. And we have asked for that to be increased up to 30 million MGD per
day. And that can be found in enumerated paragraph 1A of the agreement. And then we also asked to extend
the life of the contract from 20 years to 50 years. And that can be found in enumerated paragraph four.
Reviewing the contract and comparing it, you'll find that the key remaining terms are all the same.
They did add additional language that the state requires on their contracts, which are things like e-verify now and
So the city has to show that they're part of the E-Verify program. Different terms and conditions with
regards to like, I'm drawing a blank, sorry. But mostly it's stuff that would require us just to say
we're in compliance with state law and really has nothing to do with the actual withdrawal of water
from the lake. So it's just, in my opinion, a lot of boilerplate.
Some of it's not even related or relevant to what we're doing, but the state's required to put that
language in there just because that's what the state requires for all of their contracts. So the contract
looks longer when you compare the two, the original and the one that's before you, but for all intents
and purposes, the main crux of the agreement remains the same. And what we're asking today is for approval
of that agreement,
It is still going through the process of being reviewed and approved by the state. They have changed
a great deal of their processes. So they have a couple of reviewing bodies that still have to look at
the contract and approve it before it can be signed by all of the various authorities at the state level
who have to review and sign it as well. So the time frame right now
which could be subject to change, but the state is very hopeful will be the actual timeframe is to take
the agreement to the NRAC for first approval by their September 8th meeting and then to take it to the
NRC for approval at their September 15th meeting. So hopefully we will see their approvals go through
in September and get signed
a signed copy of the agreement back I would hope relatively shortly after that time so that we can then
have our mayor and Director Zeiger and President White sign the agreement as well and then we'll put
that contract to bed. Any questions? Chris, how does the Corps of Engineers fit in all this?
With regards to the withdrawal, that's strictly between us and the state who has the control over the
use of the water in that regard. Where we get in with the Army Corps is with regards to the location
of our facilities, making sure that we're within easements, making sure that because they own the land
around the lake, so we're sitting on property that they own.
So that's where we negotiate and have to deal with the Army Corps. But with regards to this contract,
the Army Corps doesn't have a say in the agreement. Okay, thanks. Any other questions? I move that we
approve the agreement with the state of Indiana. Second. It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion?
All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed?
All right, contract our end is approved. And you'll see it after the state has reviewed, approved and
signed as well. Thank you. Very good. Thank you. Next is requesting approval of the service agreement
with GAI consultants. Hi, Jane Fleig, utilities engineer. This is a request to approve an agreement
for professional services for the design of the replacement of the 6th Street limestone arch culvert.
It's in the 300 block of West 6th Street, pretty much adjacent to the parking lot for the Blooming Foods
business there along 6th. It was determined in the report that we received in January from GAI consultants
that it was in very poor condition and needed to be replaced.
So we have put together this contract with GAI to perform the design services, utility coordination,
prepare construction documents, et cetera, in the amount of $240,700. And I would be happy to answer
any questions. Yeah. Thanks, Jane. So if the design costs a quarter of a million dollars, how much is
the actual
Replacement on a cost. We don't have an actual engineers estimate yet, but It's going to be expensive.
It's going to be expensive, unfortunately. Anything else? I move that we approve the service agreement
with GAI consultants. Second. Moving seconded.
Any other discussion? Jane, I'm thinking for a minute, we do culverts, county does bridges, right? Okay.
Yeah, and this is a culvert. Actually, when GAI did the limestone culvert investigations, it was 6th
Street, 4th Street by Wonder Lab, and then there's one that I didn't know about until last year, Roger Street.
close to where the Army Navy surplus used to be. They inspected all of those and the 4th Street limestone
arch and the 6th and the Roger Street limestone arch are in much better condition. Roger Street needs some
retucking of the limestone inside, possibly some concrete pouring around the bottom. And that is actually
included in this design as well. We will have the same contractor while they're in town enter into there
and get that repaired, those repairs done. But I think we're in good shape for definitely for 4th Street.
And then if we would do these repairs for Roger Street, it'll be some time before we have to look at
those again. Okay, any other discussion?
for the question. Oh that's right we are all right it's been moved and seconded all in favor say aye.
Opposed? All right motion carries thank you Jane. All right next is the request of approval for a service
agreement with HNTB for water system design services.
Kevin white capital projects coordinator. I'm actually going to do number nine first. It'll make a little
bit more sense Okay So this one is for the HNTB the hydraulic modeling for a total contract amount of
two hundred eighteen thousand dollars and This will allow HNTB to
expand our current hydraulic flow model. We have one, but it hasn't been updated in a little while,
so we're going to be concentrating on water mains six inches and larger, and they'll update all of the
current information, tank information, some SCADA information into the flow model, which will allow
them to then create three future
Model scenarios that that kind of that show our demand so that will allow us to determine the system
resiliency and Also for potential locations to do any necessary upgrades to meet future demands Happy
to answer any questions related to that Okay, so you want us to approve item nine I Can go ahead with
eight if you want me to do eight now. I just that's fine. Okay, I
So item nine then is with HNTB for hydraulic modeling and system-wide improvements for $218,000, right?
Yes, sir, that's correct. OK. Good. Any questions for Kevin? All right. I move that we approve the service
agreement for the hydraulic modeling with HNTB Corporation.
Moved and seconded all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? All right it's approved we'll back up then.
Thank you. All right so the second one is also with HNTB for as needed water system design services
so as a result of the flow modeling any of the necessary locations that will need improvements this
will allow them to actively start
to actively start design without having to bring separate design contracts to the board. So this will
directly relate to the hydraulic modeling. Okay. And that is for a not to exceed amount of $250,000,
but would just be based on an as needed rate. Okay, any questions for Kevin on this one?
approve the as needed water system wide design services agreement with HNTB Corporation. Okay, it's
been moved and seconded. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? All right, motion carries. Thank you.
Thank you. Okay, our next item then is requesting approval of the service agreement with CHA Consulting.
Hello, I'm Dan Hudson, Capital Projects Manager, CBU. CBU, we use the qualification-based procedure
RFQ, RFP process to identify the engineering firms best suited for the Blucher Pool Wastewater Treatment
Plant Rehabilitation and Upgrade Project.
After reviewing several firms' qualification, including the technical approach, wastewater treatment
experience, project team, understanding of CBU needs, we narrowed down to two firms, highly qualified
firms, and we asked them to submit a RFP. After the RFP review, we found that a firm called CHA Consultants
was the most qualified to do the job, and that was for $2.375 million for the professional engineering
services that included design, evaluation, and construction phase engineering. This 2.375 million CHA
engineering contract is essentially a roadmap for major rehabilitation of
It touches more than 30 major plant systems, infrastructure areas, from the headworks, clarifiers, through
sludge pumping, dewatering, and chemical feed controls, and site improvement. The goal was not only
to replace aging equipment, but to improve reliability, redundancy, and energy efficiency,
operator safety and maintainability. CHA will take this project from evaluation design through permitting
and construction phase engineering. At this point, I just want to remind everyone that this is a professional
engineering contract, not a construction contract. The construction contract is expected to be a separate
contract and will be
substantially larger than this. I'm open to questions. Okay. Questions? Good explanation. Thank you.
Is he here? Oh, by the way, Andy Scales from CHA Consultant is here if you have any
questions you'd like to talk to the consultant. Where are they located? Excuse me? Where are they located?
Indianapolis. I don't know the address. Hi, Andy Scales with CHA Consulting. So we're located in Indianapolis
downtown in the Capitol building and then we also have offices in Evansville and the Goatee. We about
a year ago did an acquisition of Midwestern Engineers.
So that group in Lagotia is also part of our team. So we've got in the Midwest area, roughly 60 or so
employees in the water waste water space. Thank you. Andy, could you tell us some other similar projects
you've done around the state? Absolutely. So we're doing very similar work right now for the town of
Jasper, Boonville, Indiana, the city of Boonville, the city of Washington. We are doing
some work up in Culver, getting ready to kick off with that. We've got a large project in Richmond,
Indiana that we're doing similar work for, so a lot of that here locally. And then CHA as a company
is mostly all parts of the eastern United States, so we're about 2,300 employees. We've got 46 offices
from New York down the coast, Pennsylvania, Virginia,
North and South Carolina, Florida, Texas, Indiana, Ohio. So we're well versed in this and across the
organization, we're probably about 250 water and wastewater staff and employees and engineers. So certainly
something we have capacity to jump into. And as a Bloomington resident, historically, I'm looking forward
to getting to work on this project. Great, thank you. Thank you. Any other questions for
Either of these gentlemen. Maybe a two part. So number one, what's our timeline on getting this going?
And number two, which might be a question over here, when we're ready for the construction, is that
dependent on a sewer rate case to be able to do the projects? We're working on one and it will be part
of that, yeah. Part of that, OK.
Design we expect this year soon within a month or so depending on the approval hanging to be able to
fund Yes, we do we have funds in the budget for this and actually we have budgeted the construction
too Okay, so we're we're ready to go. It's just a matter of Getting it going. I don't think the construction
is going to start until next year and It's maybe multi-year
a couple of your projects. It's a big project. Okay, thank you. Great. I move that we approve the service
agreement with CHA Consulting. Second. It's been moved and seconded to approve the service agreement
with CHA Consulting. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. All right,
our next item is requesting approval.
A service agreement with Bluestone Tree Incorporated. Zach Bernworth, Assistant Superintendent of Blucher
Pool. I've been covering for Dillman Assistant Superintendent while they were searching for a new one.
We're taking on the job of getting the dam cleared down at the EQ basin at the Dillman Wastewater
trying to have Bluestone come in and do that. I walked out and forgot the agreement that had the pictures
on it and everything. My apologies. No problem. It's clearing the whole south. The south end of the
EQ basin is a dam, and they're wanting to clear the south side of it and the southeast side of it. So
Bluestone has the equipment, the manpower to do so, and the city doesn't have the equipment to do it, so. Okay.
Thank you. Any questions? Yeah. How many trees are we talk is a large swath of force. It's a pretty
good swath, but they're all like sapling size. Perfect. They're not. They're not big trees at all. OK,
I'd say the Max is probably 12 inch. If that yeah. Thank you and they will be spraying. To make sure
that it stays clear. Hmm.
Okay, any other questions? All right. Move that we approve the service agreement with Blue Stone Tree
Incorporated. Second. Okay, it's been moved and seconded. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed?
Motion carries. Thank you. Next then is requesting approval of service agreement with Christopher B.
Burke Engineering LLC.
I wore my tall shoes today too. I'm not quite tall enough. I'm Kelsey, the Tony Assistant Director for
Environmental. I'm presenting to you today a service agreement with Christopher Burke Engineering for
$517,270. So we went through a rigorous solicitation process for our Clear Creek Corridor Renewal Project.
which is going to be a reconstruction of the limestone block walls of Clear Creek. We're at Daylights,
just at First Street, all the way to Switchyard Park. It's a hundred-year-old construction back in the
WPA era, so the limestone block walls have been failing for some time in many locations. So this will
give us an opportunity to create a safer drainageway with better capacity. We have a vision for
you know, more flood storage, water quality treatment, and just a reinvigoration of the entire corridor.
So this is going to be a very large-scale project that will happen over a long period of time, but we
are really excited to take the first step to contract out a feasibility study. We had so many wonderful
firms submit proposals for this. We initially received
10 proposals that were incredible just through the request for qualifications phase. We narrowed it
down to five. I was hoping we could narrow it down to fewer, but there were just so many great proposals.
So we had five firms come in, do presentations, just spent so much time and effort really trying to
get this contract. Kristerberg pulled ahead. They are partnering with Ratio Architects, who was the
original design firm for Miller Showers Park. The same architect will be on this project.
as well as other partners. And we had other department heads in these presentations as well, so we got
feedback from other folks in the city. So we're just really excited to get this large project started.
I'm happy to talk through more of the scope, or I'm happy to answer questions you might have. Anyone
have any questions? Yeah, go ahead.
Is, are these limestone arches, these culverts, correct? Is that what you said? It's an open channel,
actually. Okay, so is this, I guess, are these areas similar to what we have at Indiana Avenue, what
we ran into over there, or is this a completely different thing? This will be completely different,
because this is all an open stream channel, so it's not going underground. There are gonna be bridges
and other crossings to consider,
but this is the downstream section. Jane and everyone here at CB did an excellent job with that six
in Indiana where it went all the way underground and this is sort of the next phase where it's all daylighted
out in the open now, not underground infrastructure. So are we at risk of having someone designate these
structures historic? Yes. This is in the proposal that they'll be coordinating with state agencies
doing all the consultations needed, assuming that the limestone block walls will be designated as historic.
We are assuming that they will? We're prepared to do the work if determined necessary, yes.
And this proposal, I guess, at what point
If they are designated historic, as I recall, Jane's project required a large outlay of cash from CBU
to do this. I understand the need of fixing and repairing and planning for the future of this, but I'm
just concerned that we're going to get this designated historic and the number is going to quadruple.
I'm very concerned about that. This is going to be a large project and there are many things that could
make that cost increase. This is the initial feasibility study where they'll do the preliminary engineering,
preliminary coordination, just to give us an idea of what we're going to be looking at. So I guess then
for the feasibility study, does this come to light in the physical, like when we get this feasibility
study back, is it going to outline
what the cost of designating these areas historic is going to cost to either us or to somebody else
who's got to pay for it. Yes, so the final product we'll be expecting from this is a preliminary engineering
report with three design alternatives. So under phase two task three, they specifically spell out notable
historic buildings and limestone wall features. They'll consult with
the state's Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology. Basically, they're going to look at those
three alternatives and do a preliminary analysis to basically bring it into the design phase to help
reduce the amount of mitigation that may be required and how much we would like to spend basically to
basically what the state tells us that would be required, trying to balance how much it would cost.
Thank you. It starts at First Street. There's a rally burger just southeast of the Seminary Square Kroger.
That First Street is where it opens up.
It goes through Dodd Street, Grimes, and we included the section south of Grimes Street because it's
still in that limestone block wall. So we're taking that whole corridor and we're going to design it
from start to finish because it makes sense to do all the modeling at once. Construction will probably
be phased since it's such a large area, but we're trying to do as much comprehensive study of the area
as we can at once so that it's more continuous as it goes.
Originally built. Um, a lot of the WPA era, um, it was in the thirties, so I don't, I haven't seen anything
on the blocks. I would say it. I've seen some other WPA era, um, limestone crossings around the Bloomington
or the county that had like a 1930, 1933 kind of etched in the limestone. So it's nearing a hundred
years. A hundred years. Isn't that bad.
We certainly, I mean, it did its job for so long, so. Yeah. OK. Other questions for Kelsey? I move that
we approve the service agreement with Christopher B. Burke Engineering LLC. Second. OK. And then do
we move and second it? All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? All right. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank
you all so much.
All right, next item is approval of the on-call service agreement with Deckard Land Survey. All right.
Good evening, Philippine Engineering. So what we've recognized is working with TND and with Brian Blake,
our land acquisition and easement person, as we look at easements and use of those easements, we need
to locate those before we get in and do any
land disturbance or tree removal, as well as some properties we own that also have trees and other properties
in close proximity that would affect where we can bring equipment in. So we saw a need here to just
have a land surveyor on call that we could have come out and stake a property line or an easement line
for us before we started any construction work. And a lot of times that needs to happen pretty quick
and it's hard to get back to the board
And then there are small amounts individual here and there. And so we just felt like this was perfect
for an on-call. Not to exceed $20,000. OK. Questions for Phil? I move that we approve the call of service
agreement with Decker Land Survey. Second. Moved and seconded. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed?
All right. Motion carried. Thank you.
All right, do we have any old business from the board? Old business from staff? All right, new business
from the board? New business from staff? All right. We haven't had any subcommittees since our last
meeting, I don't think. We do have a property planning subcommittee meeting planned for
September the 8th for our next meeting Staff reports Then this evening all right anyone here for public
comment petitions or communications Yes, I Don't think that the folks who wished to discuss the decision by a
the utilities department to deny their request for connection have appeared, but I did want to address
the board. We had some folks who own property outside of city limits located at 3704 South Judd Street
request that we allow them to connect to our sanitary sewer because they have a
septic system that's not functioning properly anymore. From their request, it appears that they have
the ability to rebuild the system, but it's going to be very costly for them. As you all may be aware
and can recall, we have very strict limited opportunities for
property owners out in the county to connect to our sanitary sewer and they are twofold. If you can
voluntarily annex into the city so that you are now a part of the municipal boundaries of the city,
then you can connect. Otherwise, you have to rely upon a finding from the economic and sustainable
development department that the development being proposed for a property
is strategic economic development that would do two things. It would contribute to job creation for
the community at large, not just the city, but even Monroe County, but to contribute to job creation
and wage growth, which has not happened with regards to this property. We don't have an administrative
remedy for the denial of a connection, so parties can feel free to go straight to
Court if they wish to to try and get a judge to weigh in So there's really nothing for the board to
do in these situations Because our rules and regulations have are pretty strict. They just say if you
don't have one of these two Things going on then you shall not connect the Brightline rule is Property
owners of the county shall not connect unless you have these two things and if you don't you just don't
get to connect so I
I wanted to bring those up as a reminder. We've referred to this as an appeal. It isn't really, it's
just an opportunity for them to come in and express their concerns with the board, but there isn't anything
really for the board to do. So I just wanted to remind the board of that role at the moment. So.
And Chris, that's because that property is not, not, it's not contiguous. Yeah, it doesn't share enough
It doesn't share any boundaries with municipal property, so it cannot establish that required one-eighth
contiguity of its property lines with the city to allow it to do a voluntary annexation into the city.
And the city is not looking to involuntarily annex that property, so there isn't an annexation going
on. And I'm assuming they're appealing because the line runs
in front of their property that they could just connect to? I've not asked GIS or anybody to show me
that. They are under the impression, and they could very well be right, that there is a sewer line running
in front of their property. They mentioned that they had neighbors who are connected, so I don't know
if we have sewer there, but that does not, it has no bearing on whether they can connect at this point
in time. I just think it's very unfortunate.
people might all very much agree with that. It'd be great if we could, but given the condition of annexation
these days, the lack of authority that waivers provide or sense of security that a municipality might
have for waivers, we just don't have a situation where we can allow connections right now. It's a good
discussion, Chris. I think it's one of those things that
We've been mindful of that our rules don't allow these kind of connections, but yet we believe that
for the best outcome for health in the community is oftentimes not a failing septic system. Correct.
The state would like to see septics go away and that folks get connected.
But the state also doesn't want to see the municipalities grow, so we're kind of in a weird position.
It's a very awkward position to be in, yes. The only way we could fix that is if we change our administrative
rules, right? Certainly, yes, and that would have to go through a process discussion with the director
and probably the mayor.
Not going to happen this evening. Yeah. So we're in the near future. Probably not. Since these were
just approved like in January, right? All right. Thank you for that update. Any other petitions
or communications? Any else? Okay, we will stand adjourned. Thank you very much.