I don't think I'm committed.

I think we have any questions.

Good afternoon.

I'd like to call May 13th Board of Public Works meeting to order.

I'm Todd Wilson, Director and Chair of the Board.

And I ask my board members to introduce themselves, please.

Dan Haig.

Cece Cordy.

Leslie Schulte.

And Bob Perrin entering.

I also like to introduce our board counsel behind me, Ben Moracle and our board secretary, Jennifer Dominguez.

Uh first item on our agenda is to adopt the May 13th agenda.

Do I have a motion to adopt the agenda?

So moved by Dan Haig.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Seconded by Bob Perrin.

All in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

That motion carries.

Next item on the agenda, approval of minutes.

Do I have a motion to approve the April 22nd meeting minutes?

So moved by Edis Redman.

Do I have a second?

Seconded by Susie Cordy.

All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Seeing that motion carries.

Thank you.

Uh, next item on the agenda is a public hearing.

I'll ask uh our board counsel Ben Moracle to read the rules governing public comment.

Thank you.

Uh before we open for the public comments, we would like to remind board members and the public of a few ground rules so that everyone can have a fair chance to speak and be heard.

It is important that we each observe the following rules.

First, each speaker will be limited to two minutes.

Second, public comments must reasonably relate to the agenda item under consideration.

Third, speakers who stray from the item under consideration or become unduly repetitious, maybe asked to move on to their next point or to conclude their comments.

And finally, attendees who cause disruptions that prevent the board from proceeding through today's agenda reasonably efficiently will be removed.

And now, Mr.

Chairman, if you'll entertain a motion to adopt these rules, we can proceed to public comment.

Do I have a motion to adopt the rules?

So move.

So moved by Bob Perrin to have a second.

Seconded by Edis Redman.

All in favor signify by saying I.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Seeing that motion carries.

Natalie Stevens, please.

Thank you.

Natalie Stevens from Water Administrator for the department.

I have board resolution number nine, 2026, which is the petition for the reconstruction of a portion of the Peggs regulated drain.

DPW staff recommends the Board of Public Works approve and adopt resolution number nine, 2026, granting a petition by Eric Gershman on behalf of GPCM County Line Land LLC for reconstruction of a portion of the Peggs regulated drain as further detailed in the petition.

Eric Gershman, on behalf of GPCM County Line Land LLC has petitioned the board for authorization of the reconstruction of a portion of the Peggs regulated drain.

The proposed reconstruction of the drain would allow for the construction of a planned development on the parcel on the northwest corner of the intersection of County Line and Arlington Avenue.

The proposed work would entail construction of a sidewalk, storm sewer pipes, and a dry detention pond.

DPW staff reviewed Eric Girshman on behalf of GPCM County Line LLC or land LLC's petition for reconstruction of a portion of the Peggs regulated drain and found that the submitted calculations and plans indicate the proposed improvements are acceptable for the expected flows of the regulated drain.

As such, DPW staff recommend approval of the petition, which will allow for the development of the site as planned.

Thank you, Natalie.

This is a public hearing.

Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak?

Thank you.

Please come up to the podium, state your name.

My name is Robin Heldman.

I reside at 8824 Combs Road.

I've lived there for more than 28 years, and during that time, my property has not experienced flooding, water table changes, or well impacts.

First of all, I would like to thank Miss Belavick, Miss Abanesser, and Ms.

Spotkin for the transparency that they shown me.

I did submit a lengthy public comment, and they did address a lot of those questions, so I am grateful for that.

Basically, I am here today just to ask for explanation on the construction plan and how traffic and drainage impacts will be managed during the project.

I think residents need to know what temporary traffic control measures will be in place around County Line and Arlington, how they can access the nearby property, the properties that they own, and then the construction activities will avoid creating short-term flooding, erosion, muddy runoff debris, and ditch and road washouts because we do have a significant amount of water that stands on both sides of county line at that parcel currently.

I would also like to request clear information on temporary bypass pumping, dewatering, sediment and erosion controls, and how those measures will be monitored and enforced through the construction.

Since this project involves work within a regulated drain corridor, neighboring landowners deserve assurance that construction will not create new flooding risk or damage upstream or downstream on the properties.

Secondly, I would request a commitment on the public record that no assessment or future financial obligations will be imposed on adjacent landowners or other landowners within the watershed for improvements that are primarily driven by a public development.

I was kind of that was kind of confirmed with me when I met with the three ladies that I mentioned earlier that this the petition calls out that the developer and or petitioner is responsible for the cost on this reconstruction.

If this reconstruction is necessary to put to support private development or infrastructure associated with a TIFF supported project area, I do believe the developer and available TIFF fund sources should be the ones that bear that cost.

I don't think long-time residents, farmers, or unrelated property owners should receive who do not receive any direct benefit should be assessed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do we have anyone else uh wanting to speak from the public?

Thank you.

Please approach the podium and your name, please.

My name is Mark Myers.

I'm a farmer.

I am not a public speaker.

Uh my brother and I own county parcel 3009074 of 10 plus acres in Peggs Drain watershed that's adjacent to Christy Mackarotts properties.

I'm also a farmer who's invested a lifetime in cropping this area and continue to do so today.

Our family has owned and farmed these fields for generations, and I probably have more practical hands-on knowledge of Peggs drain than anyone living today.

The system established in the 1880s was vital to the area drainage.

It began east of Combs Road and outleted into a creek west of what is now I-65.

Through the years, the system's been compromised, partially deleted, and repaired in multiple locations.

The construction of I-65, the first county line overpass, the later addition of the current interchange, the failed development of the proposed Cabela site, installation of utilities, and the large interceptor sewer east of Arlington Avenue have all crippled the effectiveness of this drainage system.

Today, this drainage system is basically non-functional and broken, as is this piece of the original clay tile of the system.

Water stands to the surface in deep manholes and cannot move to the west, causing water to back up to Combs Road to the east.

I'm 100% in favor of reconstruction proposal.

That's our best hope of returning this area to its former productivity.

I've not been able to plant and harvest some of these areas since 2012, which was an agricultural drought year.

Over time, these areas of standing water have grown and persisted longer.

Just a few weeks ago, I attempted to till the Kyle Bowman property on the corner, and the northeast corner had standing water, and I couldn't do so.

The pegs drain system runs east and west through this entire property.

Many years I'm unable to plant all this field, and that's not fair to the landowner who's paying property taxes and restricting potential development.

When I was a child, livestock grazed in the woods, and my father was always able to plant and harvest 100% of this farmland.

Today the standing water has even killed a number of mature trees in our woods.

I've always been led to believe that these legal drainage systems must be perpetuated by law so as to maintain their established flow.

I'm frustrated with the current situation that we've dealt with for decades for myself as a farmer, for my landlords and the neighborhoods that are affected.

I feel this condition would be drastically improved by the reconstruction, and I will help in any way that I can to see this done.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Anyone else from the public uh wanting to make any comments?

Are there any questions from any of our board members?

Seeing none, do I have a motion to approve resolution number nine twenty twenty-six?

So moved by Dan Haig.

Do I have a second?

Seconded by Leslie Schulty.

All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Seeing none, that motion carries.

Thank you all.

Uh, this public hearing is now closed.

Our next item on the agenda are resolutions.

Natalie Stephen.

Uh resolution number 10, please.

Thank you.

I have board resolution number 10 2026, which is the petition for the modification of an encroachment upon the right-of-way of the pegs regulated drain.

DPW staff recommends the board of public works approve and adopt resolution number 10 2026, granting a petition by Eric Gershman on behalf of GPCM County Line Land LLC for the modification of and encroachment upon the right-of-way of the Peggs regulated drain as further detailed in the petition.

Eric Kirschman on behalf of GPCM County Line Land LLC has petitioned the board for approval of modification of and encroachment upon the right-of-way of the Peg's regulated drain.

The requested approval of modification and encroachment would allow for the construction of a proposed development on the parcel on the northwest corner of the intersection of County Line and Arlington Avenue.

This construction would entail a modification to the regulated drain to reduce the easement from 75 feet on both sides to 50 feet total, and construction of a sidewalk, storm sewer pipes, and a dry detention pond within the regulated drain right away on their property.

DPW staff, excuse me, has reviewed Eric Gershman on behalf of GPCM County Line Land LLC's petition for the modification of an encroachment upon the pegs regulated drain right away, including proposed construction, and found that the submitted calculations and plans indicate the proposed improvements are acceptable for the expected flows of the regulated drain.

The proposed encroachment will allow for the continued unaffected operation of the regulated drain based on the information reviewed by DPW.

As such, DPW staff recommend approval of the petition, which will allow for the development of the site as planned.

Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Do we have any questions from the board?

Seeing none do I have a motion to approve the resolution number 10?

So moved by Aegis Redman.

Do I have a second?

Second.

That's seconded by uh Sebeka Jawanza.

All in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Seeing none that motion carries.

Next resolution, Natalie, please.

Thank you.

I have board resolution number 11, 2026, which is petition for modification of an encroachment upon the right-of-way of the Fowler House and Regulated Drain.

DPW staff recommends the board of Public Works approve and adopt resolution number 11 2026, granting a petition by Philip Going on behalf of Sucwinder Singh for encroachment into the right of way of the Fowler House and regulated drain, as further detailed in the petition.

Philip going on behalf of Sucwindersing has petitioned the board for approval of modification of an encroachment upon the right of way of the Fowler House and regulated drain.

The requested approval of modification and encroachment would allow additional diesel fuel bays to an existing fuel center.

This would accommodate the truck turning radius as well as add associated stormwater piping.

This construction would entail 134 linear feet of concrete curb, 2,920 square feet of asphalt and underground stormwater piping, one storm sewer manhole, and one flared end section within the regulated drain right of way of their property.

DPW staff reviewed Philip Going on behalf of Sucwinder Singh's petition for the modification of an encroachment upon the Fowler House and regulated drain right-of-way, including proposed construction, and found that the proposed improvements are acceptable.

The proposed encroachment will allow for the continued unaffected operation of the regulated drain based on the information reviewed by DPW.

As such, DPW staff recommend the approval of the petition, which will allow for the development of the site as planned.

Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Any questions?

Is there a reason we're not we're just putting in a curb and not a sidewalk here?

Um that is a good question.

I don't know if the if the petitioner is present and might be able to answer that question.

I don't believe so.

Um this is this would usually go through BNS for approval, so that's something that they would see and probably ask the question.

But right now, um DPW's role is just for regulated drain encroachments, but I can yes.

Oh okay.

Um Anna Gridley is part of our regulated drain team.

So Anna, can you come up and provide some information?

Thank you, Anna.

Anna Gridley, DPW engineering.

Um, it's because the curb is outlining their private parking lot, so it's not anywhere in the right-of-way or near the right-of-way, so essentially it runs along where the open ditch is right now at the edge of the proposed pavement that they're putting in.

So there's not space for a sidewalk or the sidewalk would essentially be serving their the edge of their private parcels.

So, like the right-of-way is along the northern boundary of their parcel, and where they're putting in this curb is along like the north, south, um, western portion of their parcel.

Thank you, Anna.

Any other questions?

Seeing none, do I have a motion to approve resolution number 11?

So moved by Susie Cordy, do I have a second?

Second, seconded by Dan Hake.

All in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Seeing none that motion carries.

Uh thank you, Natalie.

Next item on our agenda are street acceptances.

Uh Jasmine Diller, please.

Good afternoon.

Street acceptance, Gray Fox Commons Section 2.

The Bureau of Infrastructure and Stormwater at the Department of Business and Neighborhood Services after confirmation of the receipt of the subject development as builds in inspecting engineer certificate of completion and compliance.

Request the acceptance of streets 0.17 miles associated with Gray Fox Commons Section 2 Subdivision.

Thank you, Jasmine.

Do we have any questions?

Do I have a motion to approve the street acceptance?

So move.

So moved by Bob Perrin.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Second by Sebeka Jawanza.

All in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Seeing none that motion carries.

Uh next one, Jasmine.

Thank you.

Street acceptance, Cardinal Grove Section 2B.

The Bureau of Infrastructure and Stormwater at Department of Business and Neighborhood Services after confirmation of the receipt of the subject development as built and inspecting engineers certificate of completion and compliance.

Request the acceptance of streets 0.41 miles associated with the Cardinal Grove Section 2B subdivision.

Thank you.

Do we have any questions?

Seeing none do I have a motion to approve the street acceptance?

So moved by E.

Just Redman, do I have a second?

Second.

Seconded by Sebeka Juwanza.

All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Seeing none that motion carries.

Thank you, Jasmine.

Thank you very much.

Next item on our agenda are bid awards.

Nathan Sheets, please.

Good afternoon, Nathan Sheets, Department of Public Works.

Uh this is a justification for bid award for ST 48009.

Southport and Five Points Road Roundabout.

HSIP fiscal year 2025 with milestone contractors LP.

The engineering division staff recommends the Board of Public Works approve and authorize the director to award ST 48009 Southport and 5 Points Road roundabout to milestone contractors LP and the total not to exceed amount of $1,775,000 on the basis of that they are the lowest responsive and responsible bidder.

Project ST 4809, Southport and Five Points Road Roundabout, consists of a conversion of the intersection of Southport and Five Points Road from a traditional intersection to a roundabout.

Substantial completion is scheduled for September 1st, 2027 with final completion scheduled for December 31st, 2028.

The engineers estimate for the construction on this project was 2,090,765.22 cents.

On March 26, 2026, 10 bids were received.

The low bidder was milestone contractors LP in the not to exceed amount of 1,775,000, which was 16% lower than the engineer's estimate.

Their part six XBE participation includes they made a good faith effort to meet the owner's goals of 158, 301, with 11.29% MBE to NS Services LLC, U.S.

Hydrovac Inc.

at 0.03%, CMG trucking at 8.99%, and Fox Contractors Corporation at 1.89%.

And Slusher's Green Thumb Inc.

at 7.02%.

0% VBE participation and 0.04% DOBE to Project Photos Doc LLC.

Their post-submittal, post bid submittal subcontracts or supply participation shows how those goals will be met.

The Office of Minority and Women Business Development Reviewed Milestone Contractors LPs submittal and found that they put forth a good faith effort.

And if you have questions or concerns about that particular bid award, I'd be happy to try to answer them.

Do we have any questions?

CNN, do I have a motion to approve the bid award?

Bless you.

So moved by Bob Perrin.

Do you have a second?

Second.

Seconded by Susie Courty.

Seconded by Susie Cordy.

All in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

That motion carries.

Next item on the agenda are change orders.

Uh Nathan Sheets, please.

Yeah, this is change order number one to CL 41034.

This is a small structure rehabilitation of asset BK 1349, located at 7790 East Thompson Road, and this is with Morphe Construction Inc.

The engineering division staff recommends the Board of Public Works approve and authorize the director to award CL 41034.

Small structure rehabilitation of asset BK 1349 located at 7790 East Thompson Road with Morphe Construction Inc., an increased amount of $30,678.18 cents for a new total not to exceed contract amount of $370,678.18 cents with 14 days added to substantial and final completion dates.

Change order number one provides additional compensation and time to cover work directives number one and two.

If you're familiar with this area, this is near Ferguson and Thompson.

And there were some impacts associated with the overall project.

And uh there was also some gas uh there was a gas main conflict uh that we're uh attempting to avoid as part of this as well.

Work directive number two again uh because of the proximity to the railroad, there were some existing footings and uh discrepancies that uh we needed to address.

And so this uh change order number one accounts for uh again 14 additional days added to substantial and final completion dates.

Um questions, concerns.

Do we have any questions regarding this change order?

Do I have a motion to approve the change order?

So moved by Dan Haig.

Do I have a second?

Second by Bob Perrin.

All in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

That motion carries.

Next item on agenda are final change orders, Nathan.

Yep, this is uh change order number three final for ST 22092.

This is the 2022 Thoroughfare Structural Rehabilitation Area One with milestone contractors LP.

The engineering division staff recommends the Board of Public Works approve and authorize the director to execute change order number three final to st 22092, the 2022 Thoroughfare Structural Rehabilitation Area with milestone contractors LP and the decreased amount of $98,497.39 cents for a new total not to exceed contract amount of two million four hundred thirty-eight thousand four hundred and one dollars and ninety-three cents, with zero days added to the substantial and final completion days.

Uh this is change order number uh three.

Uh this basically uh trues up uh final adjustments um for uh quantities, and if you have questions or concerns, I'd be happy to try to answer them.

Questions.

Yeah, so was this a wholesale resurfacing project or like uh patching?

Um I let me scroll through here.

Mark, do you know if uh what the scope of the work of that was?

Um yeah, so this work had uh CCMG funding to the state associated with it.

It included pavement rehabilitation of Mays Road from Chevleville to Acton, Carroll Road from Thompson to Vandergriff, and uh included a small structure replacement along Mays Road and Carroll Road.

So it was it was full-on resurfacing, and I think I believe actually along Mays Road, it was uh full depth reclamation FDR work.

Is there a reason we didn't put a sidewalk in when we did this work?

I'm familiar with the area, and I suspect that uh the um the right-of-way there is just extremely limited, um, particularly as you get out into these old county roads.

A lot of times the right-of-way is basically the the back of the paved surface for all intents and purposes, and so if we were to add a sidewalk, it would require us to uh purchase that additional right-of-way in order to do so.

And maybe double or triple the construction costs.

Um it could uh again, you know, you're dealing with right-of-way costs, adding the sidewalk.

Typically, in these areas, uh, it's open drainage, and so there's ditching immediately adjacent to the roadway, and so uh you would also have to address some of the drainage concerns as well.

So, uh not to say that it is uh um cost prohibitive, but uh it uh would substantially increase the cost of the project.

Thank you.

I would just add the funding from the state, the CCMG community crossing smashing grant Fund uh is a 50 50 cost share with the state, and it is focused on shovel ready paving rehabilitation type projects.

Thank you.

Do we have any other questions?

CNN, do I have a motion to approve the final change order?

So moved by Leslie Schulte.

Do I have a second?

Seconded by Aegis Redman.

All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

That motion carries.

Thank you, Nathan.

Uh you're next to uh next item on agenda professional services agreements.

Nathan.

Yes, this is a uh professional service agreement for inspection.

Uh for the uh JOC 26009.

This is on call construction services vertical construction with Aegis BLN USA Inc.

The engineering division staff recommends the Port of Public Works approve and authorize the director to execute JOC 26009 on call construction services vertical construction, a new professional service agreement for inspection with Aegis BLN USA Inc.

in the not to exceed total agreement amount of 200,000 dollars with an expected agreement expiration date of June 30th, 2029.

Project JOC 2609 is for the repair and renovations of DPW owned buildings.

The construction contract term will be one year with two single year options for extension for a maximum duration of three years again.

Final completion is expected to be June 30th, 2029.

Aegis MBE WBE VBE DOBE participation will include 20% to MBE sub DLZ, 4.5% to VBE sub Veterans Engineering and Technical Services LLC, and 2.5% to DOBE sub-redemption engineering.

Uh Aegis was selected through the RFQ 2026 uh-1.

And if you have questions about this particular inspection contract, I'd be happy to try to answer them.

Questions?

Do I have a motion to approve the agreement?

So moved by Susie Cordy.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Seconded by Dan Hake.

All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The motion carries.

Next one, Nathan.

This is professional service agreement.

Again, another inspection for ST 26101.

This is our 2026 local street resurfacing and reconstruction with BS Engineering Inc.

The engineering division staff recommends the Board of Public Works approve and authorize the director to execute ST 26101, 2026 residential street resurfacing and reconstruction.

A new professional service agreement with inspection with VS Engineering Inc.

and the not to succeed total agreement amount of 412,000 dollars.

This agreement has an expiration date of December 31st, 2027.

Project ST 26101 is a program for the resurfacing reconstruction of local roads outside of the lead service line restoration areas.

It may be also used uh to include curb ramps, sidewalks, striping, traffic signals, and drainage elements.

The exact scope of work will be negotiated with the winning developer during a joint collaboration period after a public meeting announcing their selection.

VS engineering will assist with the scoping period and inspection of that program.

VS VS is MBE, WBE, BBE, and DOBE participation will include 9.9% to MBE sub value plus engineering, 9.9% to WBE sub-DB engineering, 4.8% to VB sub vets engineering, and 2.9% to DOBE sub-redemption engineering.

VS was selected through RFQ 2026-1.

And again, if you have questions about this particular inspection contract, I'd be happy to try to answer them.

Thank you.

Are there any questions?

CNN, do I have a motion to approve the agreement?

So I move.

So moved by Bob Perrin, do I have a second?

Seconded by Aegis Redman.

All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The motion carries.

Thank you, Nathan.

Uh next one, Mark St.

John.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mark St.

John, Chief Engineer for DPW.

The first item I have before you is professional services agreement for design on ST-25-644, Georgia Street Improvements between Meridian Street and Pennsylvania Street.

This would be with Crawford Murphy and Tilly Incorporated.

The engineering division staff recommends the Board of Public Works approve and authorize the director to execute ST-25-644.

Georgia Street Improvements, Meridian Street to Pennsylvania Street, a new PSA for design with CMT and the not to exceed total agreement amount of $1,098,670,000.

This agreement has an expiration date of December 31st, 2028.

Project ST-25-644 is the reconstruction of Georgia Street between Meridian and Pennsylvania.

It will include increased pedestrian and greenery space and a reconfiguration of the vehicle travel lanes.

CMT's MBE WBE VBE DOBE participation will include 12% to Infrastructure Engineering of Indiana, 7% to VS Engineering, 4% to resolution group, and 4% to Gidon Design.

Crawford Murphy and Tilly was selected through RFQ 2026-1.

CMT is here, and I am also happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Are there any questions?

Mark, is this the section of Georgia that was upgraded for the Super Bowl?

Uh yeah, yes, correct.

It is the eastern block of Georgia Street.

And it's hard to believe that's been 14 years, I think now.

But uh, so the original design now just isn't serving for our current needs.

Why is this happening?

With a million dollars worth of design, you're probably talking what 10 million in project cost, something like that.

Yes.

Um there this project is uh coming through DMD.

It is funded through the downtown TIFF.

Um DMD had completed a study in the last three to five years, the downtown South Connectivity Vision Plan, and it looked at a number of things in downtown Indianapolis.

Georgia Street was one of the focuses.

Um Georgia Street, when it was done 10 to 15 years ago for the Super Bowl, was really laid out with event space in mind and singular one-off events.

And um what we find is the rest of the time when there's not events going on, the street is not really set up uh to be activated for day-to-day use.

Um so there's been a number of redevelopment along this block of Georgia Street, the Hyatt opened within the last couple of years.

Uh the Ritz Carlton is currently under construction, and so this is an intentional decision to try and reactivate pedestrian space and pedestrian walk walkability and use along Georgia Street.

Uh it goes hand in hand with the West Block of Georgia Street, which is currently under construction as part of the insignia hotel uh project.

Hopefully that answers your question.

Any other questions?

CNN, do I have a motion to approve the professional services agreement?

So move by E.

Just Redman.

Do I have a second?

Seconded by Sebeka Jawanza.

All in favor, signify by saying I.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The motion carries.

Mark St.

John, next one.

The next item I have is another PSA for design on GT-21-0T O02, which is the Grassy Creek Greenway Trail, 30th Street to Pencey.

Uh, this is with Infrastructure Engineering of Indiana LLC.

The engineering division staff recommends the Board of Public Works approve and authorize the director to execute GT-21-002, Crassy Creek Greenway from 30th Street to the Pennsyl Trail, a new professional services agreement for design with infrastructure engineering of Indiana LLC and the not to exceed agreement amount of $1,286,700 with an agreement expiration date of December 31st, 2031.

Project GT-21-002 is for the design and permitting for the completion of the Grassy Creek Greenway from Grassy Creek Regional Park at 30th Street to the Pennsee Trail.

Infrastructure Engineering of Indiana LLC's MBE WBE VBE DOBE participation will include 40.2% to SJCE, SGCA engineering, CTL engineering, and metric environmental, 7.4% to contacts LLC, and 0% to VBE and DOBE subs.

Infrastructure Engineering of Indiana LLC was selected through RFQ 2022-1 item 10.

This project was also one that was recently awarded IMPO funding uh through their fall call for projects.

Happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Are there any questions?

Do I have a motion to approve the agreement?

So moved by Susie Cordy.

Do you have a second?

Seconded by Dan Hake.

All in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The motion carries.

Thank you, Mark.

Next item on our agenda is from Mo McReynolds, Energy Efficiency Conservation.

Hello.

I know I'm not usually here, so this is a rarity for me.

Thank you for allowing us some time.

You'd like me to read the memorandum.

Is that correct?

We do not have a project number, so that might be a unique aspect to this project.

Staff in the Office of Sustainability, myself representing it as the administrator recommends the Board of Public Works approve and authorized the execution of a professional as a service agreement with Purdue University, School of Technology and Engineering, Department of Energy Industrial Assessment Center, including utilizing student training to conduct an ash rate level two energy assessments for key municipal buildings and produce reports with detailed analysis and recommendations on energy efficiency building upgrades.

This building is for an amount to not exceed 332,645 dollars and will expire on August 1st, 2027.

This consultant is specially eligible for this Department of Energy grant opportunity that has come through us as a part of an extended um, it's not a competitive grant program, but it's funds specifically allocated for the largest 40 cities in the United States as a part of the Inflation and Infrastructure Jobs Act.

This consultant is exclusively eligible for this through the Department of Energy and it's pre-qualified and certified as a Department of Energy organization.

Thank you.

Do we have any questions?

I have one quote.

What would qualify a building for such an assessment?

Yeah, it's a great question.

We've done some initial analysis in our office with the entirety of the building portfolio for the city and have assessed which are the highest users of utilities per square foot.

And so we're gonna focus on that top tier, assess those within the specifics of each building, and then make recommendations for building upgrades for energy efficiency.

For example, LED lighting, additional um installation, various projects like that, white roofs potentially.

There's a whole gamut of projects we could conduct, and then within the funding we've been allowed from the Department of Energy, we have some ability to make those retrofits.

Good question.

Do we have any other questions?

CNN, do I have a motion to approve the agreement?

So moved.

So moved by Leslie Schulte.

Do I have a second?

Seconded by Bob Perrin.

All in favor, signify by saying I.

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you so much.

Mr.

Chairman, I have to say, due to my affiliation with Purdue University.

Thank you.

Sorry about that.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next item on the agenda is parking study.

Sam Barris, please.

Thank you, Director.

So DPW staff recommends that the Board of Public Works approve and authorize the director to execute a professional services agreement with Nelson and Niggaard Consulting Associates Inc.

for a study of the city's parking system.

This contract will have an expiration date of December 31st, 2027, with compensation not to exceed 350,780.

This cost is going to be shared between the Department of Public Works and the Department of Metropolitan Development.

And this vendor was selected under request for qualifications 13 DMD 99.

So, for background on what this is, the city last conducted a comprehensive assessment of our parking system in 2015.

So it's been over 10 years since that time.

Obviously, there's been a great deal of development in our commercial areas.

And so this study, again, a collaboration between DMD and DPW would essentially study supply and demand of available parking in core commercial parts of the city.

The data that we collect from this is going to be helpful to both departments.

So for DPW, obviously, we have the general responsibility of managing the city's right of way, but more specifically, we manage the city's um contract with Park Indy, which obviously all of the meters are encompassed in, so that's going to be a huge part of this is facilitating that relationship between this consultant and with our parking vendor.

And then for DMD's perspective, and I should say they took this agreement to MDC last week for approval on their end.

So this is the second part of the approval process since it's a multiple department contract.

For DMD, the data and the recommendations that could come out of the study could help them form future planning recommendations as it relates to parking minimums and things like that.

So we're really excited to get this kicked off.

Happy to take any questions.

Paid parking as a third rail politically for a lot of Midwesterners.

Do the city counselors know about this?

Yeah, great question.

And that's something that I want to be really clear about.

So while this study is going to produce, I think lots of helpful data on parking availability and demand, and we can look at things like demand and supply for parking during special events and other sorts of scenarios.

I think that will be really helpful.

However, any recommendations that come out of it as they relate to the parking meter system, the vast majority of those things would actually require direct council approval to implement.

So for example, amending any part of the 50 year parking contract with park Indy requires a full council approval process.

And we just went through that for uh an item you know a few months back.

Adding parking meters to locations that don't already have them, that requires council approval to do as well.

Um, so there are some small technical changes that could be made without going through that process, but I just want to be clear about that.

This is a refresh of data that the city has not refreshed in over 10 years, and recommendations that come out of this study are still subject to approval processes that in most cases exceed what the administration would be able to do on its own.

All right, so um a point of feedback that'll lead to a question.

So when I read the packet this week, um I was like, oh, this is interesting.

We privatized parking, what over a decade ago, like why are we doing this?

And went back into the packet, and there was just the memo again.

And so I went online to go and found the MDC resolution, and it seems like this is specifically targeted at neighborhoods.

So is this an actual citywide look at things, or is this like we're looking at the parts of Mass Ave that aren't metered?

Are we looking at Irvington?

Um, what is the actual scope of work for this?

So part of it is the comment like, please include that in the future.

But um, if you can answer that question, and like why are we doing this?

Like, I I'm okay with the idea of studying parking.

I think it's a good idea, but like why now and who's asking for it.

Yeah, yeah, absolutely.

And those are great questions.

So, in terms of the study area, um, the study area is gonna include first of all the regional center, um, and then there are commercial areas that don't fall into the regional center that are broadly considered to be, you know, places where people go to shop and eat and and parking uh demand is a you know potential issue depending on the time of day you go.

So the areas that are included in the study would include um Broad Ripple, which already has some meters, obviously, Fountain Square, Irvington, uh, the North Mass area, which has seen a lot of development in recent years.

And again, the idea is not necessarily to suggest putting meters in places where there are not.

Um DMD has to, when they approve developments in any of these locations, has to consider how much parking is made available as part of those developments.

So there are multiple reasons why you might want to have an assessment of how challenging is it to park in a place, you know, and and what what demand for parking is there?

Um this study can look at privately operated um available parking, so they can look at uh available parking garages, what those garages charge, things like that that would be beyond the capacity of exiting uh existing city personnel.

Um they also bring in a great degree of expertise in terms of data collection, being able to use, you know, aerial uh imagery, be able to have on-the-ground spotters actually measuring how much parking is occupied in a certain area.

So they bring a lot to the table in terms of of tools they can add, and why now again uh your to your point, you know, the parking contract.

We're in year 16 now, and um, you know, the the I'll just give you an example.

The boundaries for parking meter zones in downtown have been fixed since 2010 when the contract was executed.

And so one example of that that I don't really need the study to tell me is like the area of Mass Av near where like the bottle works is located, is now one of the hardest places to park in the whole city.

But when those boundaries were initially determined, there wasn't a lot of development there.

So the parking rate that you pay on that part of Mass Have is actually cheaper than in other parts of downtown, and that's just a relic of when those boundaries were initially drawn.

So if we can get good utilization data to show there's a high demand for parking in certain parts of downtown versus others, that would be one example of the type of thing that would be helpful to have.

Um, and again, I think as a matter of good practice, and given the benefits to multiple city agencies, refreshing this data every decade is probably just a best practice that I would encourage others to continue to do in the future.

That's good.

I have a follow-up question.

Sure.

So, parking really drives walkability or the lack thereof.

Parking really drives how friendly our public spaces are to events, to gatherings, to just living in a location.

Is there in this parking study any public feedback mechanism?

Absolutely.

So one of the uh criteria that we evaluated potential consultants on were um stakeholder engagement plans.

And so obviously, as we we what we have to get a contract executed with this vendor first, but one of the first things that we'll do is in addition to coming up with that data collection plan, that's obviously pretty important, is working out who uh you know which organizations they'll need to uh collect both quantitative and qualitative data from what concerns beyond simply parking availability exist in each of the parts of the study area, and you know, that feedback will absolutely inform any recommendations that come out of this.

So, yes, we we envision stakeholder uh and community engagement being a big part of you know what what we're getting for our money here.

Thank you.

Do we have any other questions?

CNN, do I have a motion to approve the agreement?

So move by Eugenis Redman.

Do you have a second?

Seconded by Sebeka Juwanza, all in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye, any opposed?

The motion carries.

Thank you, Sam.

Next item on the agenda are services agreements.

Margaret.

Hello.

Uh Margaret Wilson, assistant CFO with DPW.

Um the DPW staff recommends the Board of Public Works approve and authorize the director to execute an agreement for the purchase of a model AT41M, an articulating telescopic aerial device, also known as a bucket truck, and related equipment from all tech industries.

This vehicle would be procured through our source well uh contract.

It's a national municipal uh purchasing cooperative of which the city is a member, and the total cost is 242,721.

And then to address the needs of new equipment, DPW obtained the price quotation for this model AT41M bucket truck from all tech industry, uh source well contract 110421 ALT.

Um this, you may remember um a couple weeks ago we took our lease agreement to the board for um the purchase of several pieces of equipment to upgrade.

Um this is separate from that and just a cash purchase one-time payment to the vendor.

Um and this again is the aerial bucket truck.

Uh it will be used for traffic signal upgrades and maintenance.

Um it's able to install and replace the uh traffic devices up in the signals, and this is a uh replacement of a 2013 vehicle.

Thank you.

Do we have any questions?

CNN, do I have a motion to approve the agreement?

So moved by Leggy Shulte.

Do I have a second?

Seconded by Sebeka Jawanza.

All in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

CNN that motion carries.

Next one, Margaret.

Okay, and DPW staff recommends the Board of Public Works approve and authorize the director to execute an agreement for the purchase of a maxi 500 pumper tote, also known as Paint Miner Truck and related equipment from ASH North America, doing business as MB companies.

This vehicle is procured through the Source Well uh National Municipal Purchasing Cooperative, of which the city of Indianapolis is a member.

The total cost is 530,677 and 56 cents.

This will be purchased to address the need for a new pavement marking equipment.

Um we obtained the quote uh from again the purchasing cooperative source well uh contract zero five zero six two five MBC.

This would be a replacement of a uh existing 20-year-old truck, and uh this keeps the pavement marking uh service within our operations division and can save on costs of um instead of getting contractors to do that service otherwise.

Yeah, to replace a 20-year-old truck, and these are very important pieces of equipment.

So do we have any questions?

CNN, do I have a motion to approve the agreement?

So moved by Susie Cordy.

Do you have a second?

Second by Dan Hake.

All in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The motion carries.

Thank you, Margaret.

Thank you.

Uh next item on our agenda are professional services amendments.

Mark St.

John, please.

Yes.

Um I have before you amendment number two to GT-32-002.

Pleasant run greenway phases two and three with DB engineering LLC.

The engineering division staff recommends the Board of Public Works approve approve and authorize the director to execute amendment two to GT-32-002, pleasant run greenway, project phases two and three, and professional services agreement for design with DB Engineering LLC with no change to the current total not to exceed agreement amount, no change to scope of service, uh, and extended consultant rates.

This amendment will also extend the agreement expiration date to December 31st, 2028.

Amendment two provides additional time and updated rates to complete requested design work.

This project design has been temporarily suspended, and these amendments to the contract will allow for additional time to complete the remaining design and construction admin services outlined in the agreement.

Happy to answer any questions you may have on this one.

Thank you.

Do we have any questions?

Yeah, when does this when is this project expected to be complete?

Like not just for design but construction.

It is expected to, I had the bid date ready to go.

It's expected to bid in June.

Um the completion date I would have to look at, but I would imagine it would spill into the 2027 construction season.

So expected to start in 2026.

Correct.

Yes.

All right.

Any other questions?

CNN, do I have a motion to approve the amendment?

So move.

So moved by Bob Perrin.

Do I have a second?

Seconded by Dan Hake.

All in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The motion carries.

Next amendment mark.

Thank you.

Um Mr.

Sheets just informed me the estimated completion date is April of 2028.

So work would begin this construction season.

It would uh carry throughout the entirety of the 2027 construction season, and then final closeout would occur in the spring of 2028 on the previous item.

Thank you.

The next item I have is amendment number seven to ST-31-059E, White River Innovation District Infrastructure Project with Crawford Murphy and Tilly Incorporated.

The engineering division staff recommends the Board of Public Works approve and authorize the director to execute amendment number seven to st-31-059E.

White River Innovation Project with Crawford Murphy and Tilly Incorporated in the increased amount of 163,000 for a new total not to exceed agreement amount of $2,664,485.

This amendment provides additional scope of services and will extend the agreement expiration date to December 31st, 2027.

Amendment number seven provides scope, funding, and staff to complete additionally requested design work.

This amendment adds 163,000 to the contract contract and additional program management scope.

Specifically, the amendment allows for additional potholing by T2 to support utility coordination, the completion of the documentary related to the project by studio au tour, and sign design by RL RLR associate services specific to the Indianapolis Cultural Trail Interpretive Panels.

Crawford Murphy and Tilly is here and can answer any questions, and I'm also happy to answer any questions uh you may have on this.

Thank you.

Do we have any questions?

Mark, maybe you mentioned it, but what's the total contract value after this amendment is added?

Uh it will be 2,664,485.

Okay.

Thank you.

And is this coming to a close in terms of design or is there going to be or there will be more amendments on this as you see it?

Um that might be a question that I'll leave up to our project manager, Eric Miller, if you want to come on up.

Um we are nearing completion of this project.

And I also like to point out this is more than design, it's just like a uh owner's rep uh position.

But I'll let uh Erica uh explain.

Hi, my name is Erica Miller.

I'm with HDR, but serving as staff augmentation for DPW and helping to manage this project.

It is nearing completion, so construction is anticipated to be complete at the end of 2026.

Um, and so CMT's contract um will also be coming to an end at that time.

And at this time, we do not expect any more amendments.

Do we have any other questions?

Seeing none, do I have a motion to approve the amendment?

So moved by E.

Just Redman.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Seconded by Sebeka Jawanza, all in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

That motion carries.

Thank you, Erica.

Uh, next item on the agenda uh for Nathan Sheets amendment number seven to on call transportation engineering services.

Yep, thank you.

This is amendment number seven to ENG 21012 on call transportation engineering services with Aegis BLN USA Inc.

The engineering division staff recommends the Board of Public Works approve and authorize the director to execute amendment number seven to ENG 21012, on call transportation engineering services with Aegis BLN USA Inc.

with no change to the total agreement amount of three million ninety thousand dollars.

This amendment provides updated rates with no change to the agreement expiration date of December 31st, 2027.

Uh amendment number one will provide uh additional uh updated rates to complete additionally requested inspection services for our project BM 32071, which is uh Shelby over pleasant run and BM 32072, which is Raymond over Pleasant Run.

If you have questions or concerns, I'd be happy to try to answer them.

Questions, seeing none.

Do I have a motion to approve the amendment?

So moved by Dan Hake.

Do I have a second?

Seconded by Sebeka Juwanza.

All in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye, any opposed.

The motion carries.

Thank you, Nathan.

Uh, next item, Natalie.

Thank you.

I have amendment number four, uh, ENG two zero zero two one on call stormwater design services with WSP USA Inc.

The Engineering Division staff recommends the Board of Public Works approve and authorize the director to execute amendment four to ENG two zero zero two one on call stormwater design services, a professional services agreement with WSP USA Inc.

in the increased amount of one hundred thousand dollars for a new total not to exceed agreement amount of seven hundred thousand dollars.

This amendment provides additional updated rates and extends the agreement expiration date to December thirty first, twenty twenty-seven.

Amendment number four provides additional funding time and updated rates to perform design services and associated work to complete projects assigned under this on call contract.

Um, and these are primarily for two projects.

One are Holton, Minnesota drainage improvement project.

Um, these we're going to utilize some of these funds for some additional scope of work related to bus stops and pedestrian connectivity, pavement improvements, um, updates to the MOT and erosion control.

And then WSP was also selected for the Keystone 34th and only drainage improvement project as part of RFQ 261.

Um, but because that's a large and pretty diverse project, we wanted to utilize their on call to complete a planning and scoping exercise first so that we could really narrow down the scope and make sure that the funds we have allocated are addressing the areas of greatest need.

So that's what we'll utilize these additional funds for.

Have any answer any questions?

Thank you.

Sorry.

No, any questions?

CNN, do I have a motion to approve the amendment?

So moved by Sebeka Jawanza.

Do I have a second?

Seconded by Aegis Redman.

All in favor signify by saying I.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The motion carries thank you, Natalie.

There are no other business uh to bring for the board.

So I'd uh ask for a motion to adjourn.

So move by Susie Cordy.

Do I have a second?

Second by Bob Perrin.

Thank you all.

This meeting is adjourned.

Okay.