Good afternoon.

I like a call to May 27th Board of Public Works to order.

I'm Todd Wilson, the director and chair of the board.

I'd like to ask my uh board members to introduce themselves, please.

Seba Jawanza.

Bob Perrin.

Good afternoon, Susie Corti.

Leslie Schulte.

Thank you all.

I'd also like to introduce our board counsel behind me, Ben Moracle and our board secretary to Jennifer Dominguez and other DPW staff.

Our first item on the agenda today is the adoption of the May 27, 2026 agenda.

Do I have a motion to adopt the agenda?

So moved by Bob Perrin.

Do you have a second?

Sorry.

Second by Dan Hay.

All in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

CNN motion carries.

Our next item on the agenda are approvals of minutes.

Do I have a motion to approve the May 13th meeting minutes?

So moved by Susie Cordy.

Is there a second?

Seconded by Aegis Redman.

All in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

CNN motion carries.

Thank you all.

The next item on our agenda are resolutions, and I'll ask Joe Glass to come up and present.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman, members of the board.

My name is Joe Glass.

I'm the executive director and general counsel of the Indianapolis Bond Bank.

Um there are two resolutions before you today.

The first is a preliminary uh resolution um approving two uh preliminary determination approving two series of bonds.

Uh the first is a forty million dollar bond issuance.

Uh new money for projects in uh DPW's uh capital plan uh for uh streets and roads.

Um the preliminary determination also approves um up to 121 million dollars in uh refunding for existing uh Indy Roads debt.

Uh the second is a declaratory resolution uh approving the projects uh to be uh financed um by the bond issuance.

Um the 40 million dollar insurance has already been approved by council.

Uh the refunding uh will be introduced at uh the June meeting and uh happy to answer any questions of the of the board.

Uh Joe is the uh so refund the remainder of the hundred and twenty-one million in bonds.

Like how much would that be, or how does that work?

So um we are looking at doing a tender refunding of existing uh Indy Roads debt.

Um working with our financial advisor, we realize that um there's enough benefit to to go through that process.

So we would basically be issuing new debt uh to refund existing um debt of the metro third affair district.

So it's lower interest rate significantly.

Correct.

One other question.

So the debt service on the new debt.

Uh there will be no new taxes to support that.

Is that what I read?

That's correct.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Do I have a motion to approve resolution number twelve twenty twenty-six?

We just took the one, right?

Joe, or we take them both together.

Uh we can take both together.

Do I have consent from the board to take uh both of these uh votes together?

Yes, so move.

I got a first and and second it.

So do uh do I have a motion to approve resolution number twelve?

So moved by Dan Haig.

Do I have a second?

Second by Sebeka Juans.

All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

That motion carries.

Do I have a motion to approve resolution number thirteen?

So moved by Idris Redman.

Do I have a second?

Seconded by Leslie Schulte.

All in favor, signified by saying aye.

Aye.

Any oppose?

Motion carries.

Thank you, Joe.

Thank you.

Uh, next item, uh, Brian Cavanaugh, please.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

Brian Cavanaugh, general counsel for the Department of Public Works.

Uh first item I have for the board's consideration today is resolution number 14, 2026 for the approval of purchase of right-of-way from the Metropolitan School District of Warren Township.

Stack staff recommends that the Board of Public Works adopt resolution number 14 2026, approving the purchase by DPW of right-of-way and temporary right-of-way from the Metropolitan School District of Warren Township as part of Project SD 23-201, the 10th Street Drainage Improvement Project.

DPW needs to acquire a right-of-way located at 975 North Post Road, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46219, that is owned by MSD Warren Township, MSD of Warren Township through its board has agreed to sell the property totaling 0.026 acres to DPW for $5,200 for inclusion into this project.

Such a transfer of real property from one governmental entity to another must be made upon terms and conditions agreed upon by the entities as evidenced by adoption of a substantially similar resolution.

Accordingly, uh MSD of Warren Township Board adopted a resolution substantially similar to this resolution at its meeting on September 17th, 2025.

The Board of MSD Warren Township has accepted the purchase price of $5,700.

That's $5,200 for the permanent acquisition and five and five hundred dollars for a temporary easement.

This resolution approves DPW's acceptance of the real estate from MSD Warren Township and authorizes DPW to proceed with executing the necessary documents to effect the transfer of property.

Thank you.

Do we have any questions on this resolution?

No question, but the document may need to be updated.

That document may need to be updated.

Um it says purchase real estate from Speedway.

Oh, the memo.

Yeah, the yeah, I I did I got that as well.

Okay, gotcha.

Thank you, sir.

I want to make sure it's quick.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments?

CNN, do I have a motion to approve resolution number 14?

So moved by Susie Cordy.

Do you have a second?

Seconded by Bob Parent.

All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Seeing none that motion carries.

Uh next item on the agenda are bid awards.

Brian, you're still up.

Thank you.

Uh I've uh for the board's consideration justification for bid award RFB 14 DPW 1766 uh for warehouse supplies.

DPW staff recommends the board of public works approve and authorize the director to award a two-year term agreement to each of Black and Company, Central Polybag Corporation, RFS Group LLC, and supply warehouse incorporated for the provision of various warehouse supplies on the basis that each is the lowest responsive and responsible bidder on certain line items under RFB 14 DPW 1766.

The city's purchasing division published a request for bid RFB 14 DPW 6 uh 1766, which included 88 different line items.

Uh the city received nine bids with the four vendors uh listed in this memo uh above uh being the lowest uh responsible and responsive bidders of the following items.

Uh black and Company as the low bidder on line items uh three, six, seventeen, eighteen, twenty-one through twenty six, twenty-eight through thirty-eight, forty-one through forty-three, forty-four, forty-eight through fifty, fifty two two fifty-two through sixty-seven, seventy through eighty one, eighty-seven, and eighty-eight.

Uh central poly uh central polybag was the lowest bidder on items seven and eight.

RFS group was the low bidder on line items five, excuse me, four, five, nine, twelve, uh, fifteen, nineteen, twenty, thirty-nine, forty, and fifty-one.

Supply warehouse was the low bidder on line items one, two, ten, eleven, thirteen, fourteen, sixteen, twenty-seven, forty-four, forty-six, forty-seven, uh, sixty-eight, and sixty-nine.

No bids were received uh from line items eighty-two through eighty-six.

Estimated uh total yearly expenditures for these uh for these agreements is approximately two hundred fifty thousand dollars.

Brian now is a mouthful.

Do we have any questions?

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

So moved by Bob Perrin.

Do I have a second?

Second by Eegis Redman.

All in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

CNN that motion carries.

Another bid award, Brian.

Thank you.

Uh for the board's consideration, justification for bid award RFB 14 DPW 1767 for the supply of waterborne fast dry traffic line paint and glass beads.

DPW staff recommends the Board of Public Works approve and authorize the director to award a two-year term agreement to each of Bart Richard uh Woodward Corporation, NS Flint Inc., LBS Enterprises LLC doing business as all state coatings uh company uh and SWORCO Industries LLC for the supply of waterborne fast dry traffic line paint and glass beads on the basis that each is the lowest responsive and responsible bidding uh responsible bidder on uh certain line items under RFB 14 DPW uh seventeen sixty-seven DPW traffic operations uh maintains agreements with vendors for the supply and delivery of waterborne fast dry traffic line paint and glass beads in order to perform its duties for the procurement of these goods.

The city's purchasing division published a request for bid RFB 14 DPW 1767, which included 12 different line items.

The city received four bids uh with uh Bart Richard Woodward being the low bidder on line items eleven and twelve, NS Flint being the low bidder on line items one, two, and four, uh all states coatings being the low bidder on line items three and six, and SWORCO Industries being the low bidder on line items seven and eight.

In this flint and uh and all states codings uh were joint low bidders on line item five, which has been awarded to uh both vendors.

Uh no bids were received for line items nine and ten.

Uh estimated total yearly expenditures under these agreements is approximately 700,000.

Do we have any questions?

Are all of these materials compatible with each other if they're provided by different vendors?

Uh so let me is I'm trying.

Is Jacob?

Yes, the answer is yes.

Great, thank you.

Very good.

Do we have any other questions?

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

So moved by Leslie Sholty.

Do I have a second?

Second by Sebeka Jawanza.

All in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

CNN that motion carries.

Thank you.

Brian.

Um next item on the agenda, Nathan Sheets, please.

Good afternoon, Nathan Sheets, Department of Public Works.

Uh, got a bid award before you this afternoon.

This is BK 25041, Monument Circle, Market Street Brick Repair 2026 with ULCO Inc.

The Engineering Division staff recommends the Board of Public Works approve and authorized the Director to award BK 25041 Monument Circle and Market Street Brick Repair 2026 to ULCO Inc.

in the total not to exceed amount of 471,200 on the basis that they are the lowest responsive and responsible bidder.

Project BK 25041 Monument Circle / Market Street Brick Repair 2026 consists of the repair of street and walkway brick pavers in the downtown area in and around Monument Circle.

Substantial completion is scheduled for March 31st, 2027, with final completion scheduled for May 22nd, 2027.

The engineers estimate for construction on this project was 499,950.

Bid results on March 26, 2026, one bid was received.

The low bidder was Olco Inc.

and the not-to-exceed amount of 471,200, which was 5.6% lower than than the engineer's estimate.

Their part six XBE participation indicates that they made a good faith effort to meet the owner's goals of 1583 and 1 with uh 0.0% MBE, 0.5% WBE, 0.0% BBE, and 0.2% DOBE.

Their post-bid submittal subcontractor supplier participation shows how those goals will be met.

The Office of Minority and Women Business Development Reviewed Olco's Inc.'s submittal and found that they have put forth a good faith effort.

Um this is a pretty standard contract that comes before you guys uh on an annual basis.

This is really just a uh maintenance contract that we uh bid out in order to uh ensure that we get rid of any kind of tripping hazards.

Um sometimes uh if you guys walk uh up and down um market or pieces of meridian around monument circle, there are loose bricks.

Um, from time to time our operations guys uh can uh make some of those um repairs, but uh sometimes those repairs uh require quite a bit more, and so that's what this contract will allow us to do.

Questions, concerns.

Just one question.

Did it surprise you that we only have one bid for this specific type of work?

Um, you know, it's it is kind of a specialized trait.

Uh I think we've contracted with OCO for uh quite some time.

I think uh we've got a good relationship with them as you can see.

Um I would I'd be a little more concerned if if we only had one bidder and the price was substantially higher than the engineers' estimate.

So we think although we only had one bidder, uh prices are um we we think good.

Any other questions?

Uh Nathan, so this is time and material against this amount.

Is that how this contract works?

So we do um identify some locations.

Uh there we the way we typically bid this is we have uh an estimated quantity.

Um, so there are locations that we know that we need to address now, but uh it does give us the flexibility to go point to locations that may become problematic um between now and that completion date uh next year.

Okay, and would you consider this just an ongoing standard maintenance cost for these streets?

It is um again.

If you look at the good news is um as you guys are aware, we completed a project along market between uh Alabama and Delaware a number of years ago.

Uh, I don't anticipate those bricks needed to be uh repaired or or um, but we do have some segments further off to the uh to the west that are showing some age, and so um unfortunately um I think we're gonna continue to have to have these contracts out until we can invest from a capital perspective to to totally redo those blocks.

Um, been fairly successful.

We uh completed a number of years ago the segment of market between um monument circle and Illinois, and then if you've attempted to drive the area um west there between Capitol and Illinois, that piece is currently under construction.

So we're taking small bites of the the need in order to fix all those bricks.

But um I have a feeling that the these types of contracts will be necessary in the future, particularly as um some of that infrastructure continues to fail.

Thank you.

Uh do we uh do have a motion to approve the bid award?

So moved by E.

Just Redman.

Do I have a second.

Second by Dan Hake, all in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

See none that motion carries.

Uh next time on our agenda are change orders, and Nathan, you're still up.

Yes, this is uh change order number three to ST 25522, Ralston Campus Infrastructure Improvements with Edwards and Jones Concrete Inc.

The Engineering Division staff recommends the Board of Public Works approve and authorize the director to execute change order number three to ST 2552, Ralston Campus Infrastructure Improvements with Edward and Jones Concrete Inc.

and the increased amount of $34,883.67 for a new total not to exceed amount of $1,516,922 and nine cents with zero days being added to the substantial and final completion dates.

Uh change order number three will provide additional compensation and quantity adjustments for work directive number four.

Uh that work directive included some additional erosion control uh measures in order to make sure we uh meet our notice termination with IDEM and then uh upon uh an inspection we did notice that there was some uh concrete that was uh damaged.

We are unsure how that actually happened, it was placed correctly.

Um but we um in order to have a nice finished project uh we asked the contractor to address some of those damaged areas so that uh change order number three covers that additional work as well.

Questions or concerns?

Do we have any questions?

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

So moved by Leslie Schulte.

Do I have a second?

Seconded by Bob Perrin, all in favor signify by saying I.

Aye, any opposed?

Seeing none that motion carries.

Thank you.

Thanks, Nathan.

Next item on our agenda are professional services agreements.

And Natalie Stevens has the first one.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Natalie Stevens, Stormwater Administrator for the department.

I have a professional services agreement for a study related to LD 15042, Eagle Creek Reservoir Water Supply and Contract Analysis with Whitman Consulting LLC.

The engineering division staff recommends the board of public works approve and authorize the director to execute LD 15042, Eagle Creek Reservoir Water Supply, and contract analysis, a new professional services agreement for a study with Whitman Consulting LLC in the not to exceed total agreement amount of 108,000 dollars with an agreement expiration date of December 31st, 2026.

This project is for the Eagle Creek Reservoir Water Supply and Contract Analysis Study.

Um part of this is to perform due diligence on the agreement and the impacts to Eal Creek Reservoir.

Um we also are working with USGS on a bathometrics survey, so it'll be analyzing the data that we receive from that and providing some guidance moving forward, but happy to answer any questions that you guys may have.

Thank you, Natalie.

Do we have any questions?

Yeah, I have two actually.

Uh the first, so in the memo, you're asking us to approve and authorize the contract and in state code.

Uh it's the board's position to approve contracts for TPW.

So my question is, why am I looking at an executed contract from February from uh May 11th signed by both Todd Wilson and the controller of the city?

So that is a good question.

Um I believe we had some advisement from our legal counsel, and I don't know if anyone's here who can Ben.

Oh, yeah.

Ben, would you be able to assist with that answer?

Okay, sorry, go ahead.

What what was the question again?

Yep.

So uh the memo is asking us to authorize the department to sign the contract.

State law says that we have to authorize you to sign a contract, and you already signed the contract with the consultant.

Oh, is that this is the one that was already yeah?

Yeah, I think this is the one that was executed uh and then I advise them that it needs to come to the board for approval.

So it's coming here for approval, but um if you it if the board did not approve the um contract, then uh we have provisions in that that would allow us to terminate for convenience.

Um how far along is the project?

Because it seems like if we're going to be hearing the citizens agreement next month, that getting advice on the agreement would be pretty far along.

I'm not sure that can you know sorry, yeah.

Yeah, we're in the very preliminary stages.

So this we um there's really just been gathering of data.

There hasn't been a memo or any sort of advisement put together.

We have been waiting for USGS to perform their basement survey so we can have that data as part of it.

So we're still in the very early phase.

So where's the the disconnect?

And maybe it's my own understanding of this between us basically having an agreement with citizens to withdraw water from the reservoir to just begin to start work on it, or those two totally different things.

There are two totally different things.

So unpack that from you a bit.

So this study is to help us not only understand do the analysis of the contract, and I believe there's going to be more spoken about um at the following board about the contract itself.

But this is for us to perform the survey, analyze that data, and it will be related to a new agreement with citizens related to the water water use agreement.

Um, but I believe there's more information that's going to be provided for the next board meeting as far as the agreement itself.

So the study is going to happen between now and the next board meeting?

The study is going to be happening between now and um the contract expiration date, which is the end of the year.

That doesn't make any sense.

Like how how do you how are you asking us to approve a contract next month when the study is going through the end of December?

The the new contract will have provisions that will add just one year to the 50-year contract that we already have, so that we can have our time to do our due diligence to make the right decision for our our residents and and Eagle Creek and and the drinking water.

Okay, so then my second question, um, did you want to address something?

Okay.

Um my second question, um, so I know Mr.

Whitman, I don't know Mr.

Whitman personally, don't know of his work, but I've heard that he's done work for the leap district and other places.

Obviously, don't know if that's true or not.

So I was wondering one, one like can we can someone speak to that experience?

And two, if there is some sort of conflict of interest, the process that we went through to clear that conflict.

Yeah, absolutely.

Um, and Jack Jack is here and he can speak to his experience.

Um, he's happy to do so.

And I I will say um, you know, Jack is highly regarded in his profession, and he actually came out of retirement to and formed a company specifically to do this work for the city because he believes it is the right thing to do.

But I'll let Jack kind of speak to his experience and answer your question.

Jack, share your name and your business.

Sure.

Uh my name is Jack Whitman.

I'm a hydrologist.

I live in Bloomington, Indiana, actually kind of near Ellisville.

Um, I've been a hydrologist for 40 plus years, and I've been most of the time that I've been working in the field has been in Indiana.

Um I get because of the length of time I've been here and the people that I've worked with and and the la the fact that there aren't that many hydrologists, it turns out.

Um, I've been included in a part of some of these larger projects, including LEAP.

Um, also large water supply and water evaluation projects to look at the question of how much water is there.

So the idea at LEAP and other places was really to ask that question.

Is there how much water is available at all?

And I think here it's critical.

It's a critical question.

I I'm it's I know how to engage that question and what kind of data is needed to answer the legitimate questions that people have.

Is there enough?

Is it the quality going to be okay, etc.?

So that's really what I do, and and leap was one example, but I have many.

So yeah.

Are there other questions?

Yeah, so what work have you already done for the LEAP district?

Oh, well, um, our company, I was part of Intera at the time, and TERA's uh a company of 300 scientists about it's kind of small um and I worked with a team to ask and answer the question of what is the water could you uh how much water could be taken from an aquifer adjacent to the Wabash River that was the question and I've looked at that we drilled uh holes to explore we did all sorts of electromagnetic studies to see where the aquifer extended and where it kind of cut off and terminated um and then we did long aquifer tests that were along the river bank to see how much water would come from the river as opposed to coming from the rest of the aquifer we were trying to answer that question because it's part of the question of availability does the water come out of the river that's one impact or does it come from the aquifer and is it really just taking part of the water that was moving to the river away and there are different impacts different quality too.

And what was the conclusion there?

There's a lot of water in the location that we tested and that's the only answer that I could give I wasn't making any kind of development decision I was making a decision helping people make a decision with information about the aquifer itself and that's kind of the thing that's always when I walk into these problems and questions the thing that's missing is the data that's needed to answer the question.

So we actually that's what we do we figure out how to collect what informations to answer the question and it's usually a fairly straightforward question like that.

How much is there?

What is its quality etc?

And then I guess my next question is it sounds like there's been some preliminary work that has happened since March.

What portion of this contract that we're being asked to approve has been billed or um how many hours do you have already in this project?

I haven't invoiced even for this project because there's been you know the delays but I was planning on invoicing at the end of May soon maybe five thousand dollars something like that five or six thousand dollars just for the setting up of my and I have uh I have engaged a few of the parties that have data and also have questions of their own so there's agencies that are involved the Department of Environmental management I've talked to them because they're a part of this story.

They're going to be permitting any discharge that comes from wherever so where that is what's in that water those are things that I'm trying to make sure I understand so I've been doing background work basically to prepare um for the project to do the work.

So let me ask staff a question so I jumped over you.

Obviously you're qualified to do this work you've done a lot of this work.

Has staff went through a process to deal with any real or perceived conflicts of interest from this past work.

I can answer that question.

So we we've added a list of consultants and admittedly we had a we had a challenging time finding someone who wasn't who didn't have a conflict of interest um and every phone call that we made we would we would ask the question if there's any involvement with work that they're actively doing with CEG or with the leap district or anything like that because we wanted to try and make it as clean and open as possible.

And Jack came highly recommended to us, and we had that same conversation with him.

And yes, he has done work with utilities in the past.

I think we'd probably be hard pressed to find a firm that hasn't, but um we we genuinely felt like he he has the best the city's best interests in mind, and we believe he will be fair and equitable with his findings.

So we really do believe he is the best choice for this work.

Just to add to that, just one thing.

I've done this kind of project before.

So reservoirs changing conditions in the reservoir, and what does that mean?

So I've looked at reservoirs that are sort of local, Bloomington, Illinois, and Decatur, Illinois, and also I worked on a uh large project for a conservation plan for Lake Monroe for Bloomington, the city that is nearby, you know, my home.

So this is something that I I know how to approach, but yeah, still good question, I guess.

And this is just for clarity.

So, is the goal here of this study to get the data from uh Mr.

Woodman to drive our decision or provide data for our next decision, which ultimately would be the the contract extension is to utilize that data based on the five tasks outlined in your agreement?

Correct.

That's correct.

Um, and he's gonna just provide us basically with a memo of recommendations, and then it'll ultimately be the city's decision on how we move forward with those.

Yeah, will we ever see those recommendations?

I'm thinking we're approving the extension to the contracts, so these recommendations would be critical to have.

I assume that those contract is not changed as well.

It's not changing that until we get the file, until we get the uh the findings from our study.

So the extension itself is just a will be an extension of the current contract.

We get the findings of the study.

We and that's what not just the results of the study, then that will gauge the next step.

That's correct.

Correct.

At the end of the day, the contract expires July 1st.

And we still need to maintain drinking water for the citizens.

Mr.

Chairman, will these folks from Eagle Creek with their signs who have diligently been coming to all these meetings?

Will they have any opportunity to address us?

No ma'am.

From some of the questions that I've heard, um, it's really been about transparency in terms of what comes about with some of these findings, what comes about in terms of the responses.

So this is an open question to understand a little bit more about are we addressing some of the concerns about when we do findings, things that we've done in the past, how transparent we've been to the public, like what are some things that we've put in place to make sure people are aware of what's happening and as we go about, particularly if we're bringing in consultants and organizations to help us understand these findings.

How are we making sure that the comp the uh the people and the communities are understanding some of these things and kind of bringing them along the way versus maybe it may feel like people are understanding things after decisions are being made?

So please correct me if I'm misspeaking about the process and are there things that we are putting in place for transparency.

That's a great question.

Yeah, so we um, and that was part of the reason why we we brought Jack in is because we want we do want to maintain transparency, we want to he's able to participate in these discussions.

He has relationships with folks, so he can advocate on behalf of the city.

Um but also, we that is why we partnered with USGS to do the bathometric survey.

That was something that we had heard that a lot of people wanted done, and we wanted to make sure that the that those those concerns were heard.

So we we're still in the very preliminary phases, but we are we are hearing and gathering data from the concerns of the residents.

That's part of what Jack's role is, so that we can make better informed decisions because we don't want to make it in a vacuum.

So we're kind of um, like I said, at the initial stages, but our intent isn't is definitely not to hide any information.

Any other questions?

So I want to explain my vote.

So first, I'm not sure that we've cleared the conflict.

Two, I'm not really happy that um the contract was executed already and that that wasn't shared with us.

Um it's not a really good way to build trust with the board.

Um, and I've said this before.

I wish that the department would do a better job at explaining these things before we come to these meetings.

We have um board memo that has a paragraph of what we're doing.

We have the scope of work.

Thank you for including it this time.

I'm like last time.

Um, but getting that whole perspective of we're doing a one-month inspection and we're doing the study through December, like that was all lost on us.

And so with that, I'm voting no.

Any more questions or comments?

CNN.

Just one one comment here.

Um, Mr.

Whitman will be providing more information, not less, right?

So whatever he comes up with will help the department, the city make a more uh informed decision.

Okay, I'm definitely not opposed to the department getting help on this.

I mean that's clearly an issue that they need help with, and they need to make it.

So more of a timing issue, I guess.

I knew this was gonna be a good discussion, and I appreciate the comments and uh we'll we'll uh we'll take those in consideration.

That being said, um, unless there's any more questions or comments, you have a motion to approve the agreement.

So moved.

So moved by pop here and do have a second.

Second.

Seconded by Ezra Shredman.

All in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

No, no, we have four yes, three no's.

Motion pass.

Next time on agenda, we get a roll call of that actually.

I'm not sure everybody.

Yeah, absolutely.

Yeah, so Becca, no.

Yay, yay, yay, no, no, no.

Yay, yes.

Thank you.

Uh, next time on agenda, uh Sam Barris, please.

Hello, good afternoon.

Sam Barris, Chief Financial Officer for DPW.

Um, DPW staff recommends the board of public works approve and authorize the director to execute a new professional services agreement for site planning with CSO Architects Inc.

for initial term of three years.

This contract has a not to exceed value of 150,000 dollars.

So for background, DPW has um about 30 structures across the county at roughly a dozen different locations.

Um we lasted a comprehensive facility assessment of these properties in 2018-2019, um, which um found that we had significant deferred maintenance needs that need to be addressed.

So, what this contract will allow us to do is to engage in um site planning work and scoping for potential um modifications to existing structures or potentially even new structures at some of these locations.

Um the goal is to continue to modernize our facilities as much as possible and reduce um future maintenance costs.

So CSO will be assisting us with essentially strategic planning work uh relating to our again over 30 different structures that we maintain throughout the county.

Happy to take any questions, got any questions?

Seeing none do I have a motion to approve the agreement?

So moved.

So moved by Dan Haig.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Seconded by Susie Cordy.

All in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

That motion carries.

Uh next time on our agenda are professional services amendments, and Mark St.

John, you're up.

Thank you.

Mark St.

John, Chief Engineer for the Department of Public Works.

I have before you amendment number six to ENG-20-015.

On call transportation design services with Hanson Professional Services Incorporated.

The engineering division staff recommends the Board of Public Works approve and authorize the director to execute amendment number six to ENG-20-015 on call transportation design services with handsome professional services incorporated in the increased amount of 480,420.62 cents for a new total not to exceed agreement amount of three million seven hundred and twenty-one thousand four hundred and twenty dollars and sixty-two cents.

This amendment provides updates and rates and will extend the agreement expiration date to December 31st, 2027.

Amendment number six will provide funding time and updated rates to complete the requested design work on ST-17-052, 29th and 30th Street, two-way conversion.

Happy to answer any questions there might be.

Thank you.

Any questions?

Yeah, where is this funding coming from?

This funding, I don't know the exact funding source.

It is local DPW funding dollars, likely gas tax money.

Okay.

So this is not the federal dollars that were used for like Michigan and New York, but there are no federal dollars on this project.

Okay.

And then what's the time frame for this construction to be complete on the 29th and 30th Street 2A conversion?

So I believe our construction PM is in the audience.

He might be able to answer things more specifically.

We have them, but um the end of 2027 for substantial completion is is my understanding.

Likely with work extending into like cleanup work and final work extending into 2028.

Any other questions?

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

So moved.

So moved by Leslie Sholty.

Do I have a second?

Seconded by Sabaka Juwans.

All in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

That motion carries.

Uh next one, Brian Cavanaugh, please.

Thank you.

For the board's consideration, amendment number one to contract number 2159 for vehicle alignment and suspension services with Anderson Spring Service Incorporated.

DPW staff recommends the Board of Public Works ratify, approve, and authorize the director to execute amendment number one to city county contract number two one five nine nine, an agreement for the provision of vehicle alignment and suspension services with Anderson Spring Service Incorporated.

This amendment will extend the term of the agreement for an additional year with a new expiration date of May 6th, 2027.

DPW maintains an agreement with Anderson Spring for the provision of vehicle alignment and suspension services for city vehicles belonging to the Indianapolis Fire Department per Anderson Springs low bid on RFB 14 DPW 1647 DPW and IFD wish to extend the term of the city agreement for one additional year yearly expenditures under the under this agreement total approximately $950,000.

Any questions?

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

So moved by Idris Redman.

Do I have a second?

Second seconded by Sebaka Jawans.

All in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

That motion carries.

Next one, Brian.

Thank you.

I have a amendment number one to contract two one six zero one again for vehicle alignment and suspension services.

Uh, this time with Palmer Trucks Incorporated.

DPW staff recommends the Board of Public Works ratify, approve, and authorize the director to execute number uh amendment number one to city county contract two one six zero one, an agreement for the provision of vehicle alignment and suspension services with Palmer Trucks Incorporated.

This amendment will extend the term of the agreement for an additional year with a new expiration date of May 6, 2027.

DPW maintains an agreement with Palmer Trucks for the provision of vehicle alignment and suspension services for city vehicles in the city fleet managed by Indianapolis Fleet Services per Palmer Trucks low bid on IFB 14 DPW 1647.

Uh DPW and IFS wish to extend the term of this agreement for one additional year, yearly expenditures under this agreement total approximately $950,000.

Thank you, Brian.

Do we have any questions?

Seeing none, I have a motion to approve the amendment.

So moved.

So moved by Dan Haig, do I have a second?

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

Aye.

Any opposed?

Seeing no motion carries.

Thank you, Brian.

Uh next item, Nathan.

Yep.

This is uh amendment number three, slight typo in the description here.

This is actually GT 06001.

Uh nickel plate trail with Hanum Wagel and Klein Engineering.

The engineering division staff recommends the Board of Public Works approve and authorize the director to execute amendment number three to GT 06001 nickel plate trail, a professional service agreement with Hanum Wagel and Klein Engineering and the increased amount of 100,400 for a new total not to exceed agreement amount of $1,399,917.87 cents.

This amendment provides no change to the expiration date of December 31st, 2026.

Amendment number three provides funding to complete additionally requested inspection work.

This includes inspection of additional trail connections, safety items, and a pedestrian uh bike station installed that wasn't included in the original uh project scope.

Um again uh an additional um hundred thousand one hundred thousand four hundred dollars and no change in uh contract expiration.

And if you have questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them.

Questions, yeah.

What are these additional safety items and bike station?

Yeah, so um good question.

Uh some of the things that we had noticed uh during construction and during our final walk through.

Um there was a situation where we needed to extend some guardrail in order to prevent people from driving on the trail.

Um, and so that was something that didn't get picked up uh during the design itself.

Um there's uh a small trail connection that is happening um north of 46th street.

Uh if you're familiar with how the nickel plate kind of jogs and we utilize uh currently utilize uh the crossing down at 46 and Keystone in uh it's temporary.

We do have a bridge planned.

Uh there's a uh small connection that we are including in order to make the trail more accessible to uh to users there, and so again, just kind of some some cleanup work and the inspection in order to ensure that uh the contractors doing what we asked and and installing it in the means and methods that's appropriate for our design standards.

Just asking for uh a slight increase in the inspection uh cost associated with the project.

And the bike station?

Um yeah.

So this is uh PACER Bike Share.

Uh I don't have the actual actual location, but um we do have a contractual relationship with Cultural Trail Inc.

and Pacers Bike Share.

So the city of Indianapolis actually owns uh the the bike share stations as well as the bikes themselves.

Um ICT Inc.

uh manages that particular contract.

Um we tend to go after federal funds in order to expand that network.

In fact, I think uh here recently it was announced as part of the uh I can't remember that the total amount 37 million-ish that the city uh received from the MPO.

Um there was uh a bike share expansion project included as part of that.

So um looking to increase that density, um deploying it in locations where we have individuals that uh may not have vehicles uh in their household, um, and uh again strategic on where we play we're placing these.

So uh we've been able to piece together I think a a great program.

Um in fact, it uh I take advantage of it quite often.

I think uh if you're a Marion County resident, um you were able to sign up for a free membership and uh so this is just another station that was added uh as part of that project.

The intent was to place it where the nickel plate and the monarch meet, so near 42nd Street by the fairgrounds.

Okay, excellent.

Um love to see this project.

That's definitely a um 46th and Keystone.

Sorry, 40 seconds 46th and Keystone planned bridge for the trail.

What's the is there any timeline for that?

So the crossing is uh Mark, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's uh a bit further north of the intersection of 46th, kind of where uh basically the nickel plate crossed.

I think the the street on the west side of the road is Erie, I believe.

Yeah, Erie and 49th Street.

Erie intersects with Keystone, but 49th would be the east-west roadway.

Do you have schedule?

Uh yes, I can pull that.

I'm gonna pull it up before I say it out loud because we are also building um a bridge with nickel plate over 82nd, too.

So nickel plate over Keystone currently has a bid date in December of this year, December 2026.

Okay, excellent bid date.

So construction starts in summer.

Correct.

Okay.

Of 27.

Yes.

Great.

Because that's a six-lane road.

Yes.

Yeah.

Yeah.

The local connection that was built with the trail itself will of course remain in place and be used for for local traffic as well, too.

Local pedestrian and bicycle traffic.

Any other questions?

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

So moved by Susie Cordy.

Do I have a second?

Seconded by Bob Perrin.

All in favor, signify by saying aye.

Any opposed?

That motion carries.

Next item on the agenda are final acceptances, and that's new again, Nathan.

Yes, this is uh final acceptance for project ST 24114.

This is rehabilitation 2024.

This is the community crossings matching grant with Wreath Riley Construction Company Inc.

The engineering division staff recommends the Board of Public Works approve and authorize the director to ex Director to execute final acceptance for ST24114 rehabilitation 2024 CCMG with Wreath Riley Construction Company Inc.

The final contract amount is 1,847,955.21 cents.

This board action is for final acceptance of the project.

Thank you.

Any questions?

Seeing none.

Do I have a motion to approve the final acceptance?

So moved by Idris Redman.

Do I have a second?

Seconded by Sebeka Jawanza.

All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Seeing none that motion carries.

Thank you very much.

Um next item.

We don't have any other uh business for the board.

So um I'd like to entertain a motion to adjourn.

Do I have a motion?

So moved.

So moved by Susie Cordy.

Do I have a second?

Seconded by Edis Redman.

Thank you all.

This meeting is adjourned.