Board of Public Works - Regular Meeting

Alrighty. Am I right on

this? Yes.

Yes. Alright.

We'll start the meeting for the board of public works for Thursday, 05/07/2026, and we'll start with a roll call. Chad O'Donnell.

Kevin Riley.

Eileen Miklitz.

Alright. With that, we'll, start with the pledge of allegiance.

Pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America, to the republic for which it stands, one nation, another God, indisible.

Okay. We'll move to I don't see any public comments. We'll move to item 4A, approval of minutes.

Minutes from April 23 are available for your review and approval.

Kevin Riley moves to accept the minutes.

Second by Eileen.

Great. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, we'll take a vote. O'Donnell, aye.

Kevin Riley, aye.

Micklitz, aye.

Alright. Motion passes. Then we'll move to item five a, approval of payments.

This round of payments are four. And as you can see, there's one final payment for the South Street ramp structural repair project. If there's any questions on those, Brandon and I will try to answer.

Just how is the bid well prospect project going?

Yes, it's going well. Sure that you saw yesterday we did get some pavements down on prospects the entire length. So that was very successful. Everything is moving on schedule. It's looking really nice. Obviously they focus a lot of the efforts on prospect first and bid well will be not too far behind. So that concrete will be curing and then next up for prospect will be topsoil placement, terrace restoration, final touch ups of that street and then more of the concrete pouring on Bidwell.

Thank you.

Is that going to be a permanent entrance to Moore Downs from La Mirra then?

La Mirra will not be a permanent entrance. So that is a temporary measure for just during the project. We've restored with the work on Prospect, we'll restore that entrance into Moore Downs Then the temporary access point will be removed. It was just temporary concrete. That was coordinated with the county that they do still only want their primary access off of Prospect. Okay.

Alright. I'll entertain a motion.

Kevin Riley makes a motion to accept the approval of payments.

Second by Micklitz.

Right. We have a motion to second. Any further discussion? That will take a vote. O'Donnell, aye.

Kevin Riley, aye.

Micklitz, aye.

Alright. Motion passes. We'll move to item six a.

Six a. This is a resolution for the Board of Public Works to prepare plans and specs and advertise for bids for the library revolving door replacement project. So this project was not in this year's budget. However, the library has brought this through the finance committee and the common council as well for an amendment for the budget to complete this project. So this is the final step for us to move forward with creating plans and specs for that project that's now included in the 2026 budget.

Kevin Riley make a motion to accept the resolution with a question after. Need a second?

I second it.

Was that door damaged? Did it fail or did it outlive its life or or and I mean and Joe Piper is not here, so I'm asking why our library remodeling didn't cover this?

It wasn't included in the project and it's failed since that project has started or previous projects have started.

Correct.

Yeah. The front revolving door is no longer operational.

That didn't quite answer my question. Did it fail or did it outlive its life? Or was there a damage?

Or I to be honest with you, I'm not sure.

I don't know the exact reasoning for the The failure. The failure, but it is yet nonoperational that does require addressing slash replacement.

Okay. It was discussed heavily at the finance committee meeting. I was not in attendance for that, but that was all discussed and brought up to the finance and then the common council approved that project.

So I'm assuming it can't be repaired?

Correct. Yeah.

Right.

Okay. They they looked at all other options. It's more cost effective to repair replace the door than it was to repair. They looked at all options for replacing the rotating door with a different type of door, sliding doors or vestibule, but that was the cheapest option to replace the revolving door.

That's what they told us at the common council on Tuesday, that it fell off its piston and that this was the most cost effective way to fix it.

Okay. Okay. Thank you.

Alright. With that, we have a motion and a second. So we'll go ahead and take a vote. O'Donnell, aye.

Kevin Riley, aye.

Micklitz, aye.

Alright. Motion passes. We'll move to item seven a.

7A, this is a bid we received on April 17. It was for the Deer Trails and Fox Lake Village Pump Station Improvement Project. We did receive four bids from qualified contractors. The low bid came in from Next Electric in the amount of $1,277,724.5 and that is what we are recommending moving forward with. The project, as you can see, it did come in slightly over the budget, but there are project savings on other projects that we've already bid this year to cover the overage on that, specifically the resurfacing project.

Kevin Riley make a motion to accept the low bid.

Mike, there's a second.

Alright. Any other discussion? That will take a vote. O'Donnell, aye.

Kevin Riley, aye.

Nicholas, aye. Motion passes. We'll move to item eight a.

This item is to review and possibly act on architectural engineering procurement management and contract administration policy for federal funded projects. So currently, we don't have a policy for that. But as part of the city's raise grant that we were awarded to study the two pedestrian bridges over the bypass, So those projects are scheduled, approved in the budget. Now we have to move forward with making sure we meet the federal requirements of said project. And the first step of that project is to look for and recruit for engineering companies to do the study and then the preliminary design, etcetera.

So Brandon worked extremely hard and put together a how many page federal policy document that meets the federal requirements for us to adopt as our own policy to make sure that we meet the federal procurement management administration policies and procedures that they require. Really the main point of it is it's a qualification based selection process compared to what we have where we consider cost in the equation for looking for consultants and this is required by the federal government. Brandon, anything else to comment on

that one? Yeah. Think the biggest thing to hit on is, yeah, the federal requirements of the Brooks Act do not allow us from a consultant engineering consultant selection process to consider cost. So it has to be qualification based selection. This policy, it's very lengthy, it's 24 pages, there's a lot to it.

It's more than just the actual process of consultant selection, it gets into contract management, dispute resolution, all the above. We did have to have specific written policies for engineering consultant, usage selection, all the above, and the also federal guidelines and requirements have specific items that we needed to include in that policy. That's why we're here today is to bring this policy forward so then we can get to the next step of actually going through the RFP process with selecting those consultants.

Kevin Riley will make a motion to accept the engineering consultant policy selection.

I'll second it.

And then just with one comment or question. Thank you so much, Brandon and Alex for doing all that to so that we could qualify for that big grant. But is there a point in the process where costs will be evaluated?

Yeah. So if you really dive I mean, you can it it is outlined in this policy with the exact steps. Cost comes into play after the selection of the basically, the top three engineering consultant firms we select. Then the next step of that process is interviews with those three. And then that gets narrowed down to one as the top selection to proceed with entering contract negotiations.

Before we get to that point, as written in this policy, this board and common council will see what our recommendation is from a qualification side of things of what consultant we are selecting and to give the approval to enter those contract negotiations. So that's when that cost first comes into play. Once we then see the cost of this the number one or top ranked consultant, If their cost does not meet what our estimated cost is and after a couple of back and forth negotiation tactics there, if they cannot get into where we estimate the project for, we do have the ability to cut ties with that negotiation and then go to the second next number two consultant and then restart that process from a negotiation standpoint.

Is is is this only for when grants come into play?

Or is

this how our standard of business is going

to be? This will definitely not be the standard course of action across the board. This is solely for, and it's in the title that it's federally funded projects. We do not have a lot of them. The city's raise grant is really the only one right now that this policy would fall into place for. If we are awarded additional federal grants, we would have to fall back on this policy that would be in place. But a normal city funded project or a CIP funded project where we do use engineering consultants, we would not follow this exact process and we would consider cost as a driving factor or a big piece of our consultant scoring.

I'm satisfied.

Any other questions? Alright. With that, we'll take a vote. O'Donnell, aye.

Kevin Riley, aye.

Micklitz, aye.

Motion passes. We'll move to item A to B.

8B and actually 8B and 8C are similar. These are both roofing projects that were funded in the 2026 CIP. The first project that was out to bid through the Omnia Partners contract would be the 2026 Municipal Garage Roofing project. That project bid came in at $486,790 Included in the attachments are the items that are going be completed. The budget on the project was $500,000 So slightly under budget on this project.

So if there's any questions, Brandon, or I will try to answer.

Just so I understand it. This was the only bid or there was more bids prior

to this? This is just the

contract because we awarded the bid to that this company.

There's four bids that were received.

Correct.

That's on page two of the cover sheet there.

Okay.

They were the low bid.

And a motion? Yeah. Kevin Riley makes a motion to accept the suggested bid.

Second, Micklitz.

Alright. We have a motion and a second. We'll go ahead and take a vote. O'Donnell, aye.

Kevin Riley, aye.

Micklitz, aye.

Alright. Motion passes. We'll move to item eight c. Eight c.

So this is the roofing project for the 2026 Cemetery Autumn Gardens roof and masonry project. So this project, it had an alternate for a masonry part of it and as well as the roofing part of it. The total project for those two items came in at $304,344 which is approximately $344 higher than the project budget. Cemetery had worked with finance and city administrator and they would be able to cover that $4,000 Karen is comfortable with moving forward with both the projects. And as you can see that there were four bids for the roofing project and three bids from the masonry project.

So we're recommending moving forward with both for a total of $304,344. Are there any questions?

So the suggested winning bid owner is the same for each project. Is that right? Are they no. Different It

would be two different contractors. One for each of those project pieces because they're very vastly different

Got it.

Types of work with one being heavy on the roofing side and the other being masonry repair. Other was not a bidder that bid on both types of or both work scopes.

Okay. Kevin Riley will make a motion to accept the proposed bid.

Second.

Alright. We have a motion and a second. Any other questions? With that, we'll take a vote. O'Donnell, aye.

Kevin Riley, aye.

Viclins, aye.

Great. Motion passes. We move to item eight d.

Eight d. This is a storm water management practice maintenance agreement. This one is with St. Paul rental properties for the Hawks Landing condominium development. This is over by Jules Drive just South of Princeton, if you are familiar with that area. So you've seen these before. It's an agreement to make sure that they maintain the new facilities that are going in there. So if there's any questions, I'll try to answer.

Do we go and look to see that they are?

So it's a development. So they're gonna construct the facilities. It is their responsibility then once it's completed to do annual inspections and things like that of those facilities. And they're also supposed to report back to us that they've completed those inspections.

Correct. There are specific reporting requirements back to us to make sure that they are maintaining their facilities or at least completing the inspections. You'll see on a future council meeting that we are working on a software solution to help us manage those and a submittal process for all of the DMP owners that follow under all these storm water maintenance agreements that come to this board that they are submitted to us in a timely fashion and they get reminders and an easy portal to submit them on. So that'll be upcoming.

So is there like a checklist or something that they check, yep, did that one, did that one, and then they just forward it to you?

Correct. Yeah. And there's certain things they need to inspect on each type of BMP. Like there's there's different things in the storm water.

Based on the type of pond or ditch or whatever is outlined in each individual property's storm water maintenance agreement. There's very specific items in each agreement that talks to their specific best management practices.

And if they don't do it, obviously, the the back the worst thing happens that they flood and and then we're not responsible for that. But if we tell them, hey, you're not complying with this, is there some ramification for them not to complying?

Correct. Yeah. There are there are ordinances and, you know, we could go down the line of what's in chapter 32 for citations and etcetera as enforcing what the requirements of our storm water ordinances are from a city perspective.

Any other questions?

Kevin Riley will make a motion to accept the Hawks Landing Condominiums agreement.

I second it.

Alright. We have a motion and a second. We'll go ahead and take a vote. O'Donnell, aye.

Kevin Riley, aye.

Micklitz, aye.

Great. Motion passes. We'll move to items nine and ten.

All we've got tonight to end the meeting here is some official notices of the Williams Street overhead and underground electric conversion project, Grady Park irrigation installation project and the twenty twenty six pavement crack filling official notices that are going out. We'll see bids for

question.