Laserfiche WebLink
AGENDA REVIEW SESSION FEBRUARY 20, 2025 34 <br />The Agenda Review Session of the Board of Public Works was convened at 10:30 a.m. on <br />February 20, 2025, by Board President Elizabeth A. Maradik, Vice President Joseph Molnar, and <br />Board Members Gary Gilot (arrived at 10:32 a.m.), Murray Miller, Breana Micou, and Board <br />Attorney Michael Schmidt present. The Board of Public Works Clerk, Theresa Heffner, presented <br />the Board with a proposed agenda of items presented by the public and by City Staff. <br />Board members discussed the following item(s) from the agenda. <br />CHANGE ORDERS <br />Mr. Miller asked if there was a request by the City to add solar flashers for item S.A.: Bercliff <br />Estates Sewer Separation. Assistant City Engineer Becca Plantz stated that they are not using solar <br />flashers for the Bercliff Estates project. <br />Mr. Miller asked if there was a damaged retaining wall where the City has to place a storm water <br />structure. Ms. Plantz advised that the retaining wall had been in place for a while, so they had to <br />dig and trench out for the structure, even though they hadn't initially expected to. The original <br />finish consisted of rock and other material, but it wasn't satisfactory, so they needed to ensure they <br />provided a replacement of equal or better quality. <br />CHANGE ORDERS <br />Mr. Miller asked if there was a request by the city to add solar flashers for item 5.13: Angela Blvd. <br />Roadway Improvements. Senior Engineer Charlie Brach stated that it was brought on by resident <br />concerns about the safety of the crosswalk there and just adding some more visibility and driver <br />awareness. That was the solution that we came to internally with our consultant. <br />REQUEST TO ADVERTISE FOR THE RECEIPT OF BIDS <br />Mr. Gilot asked if the request for item 6.A.: 2025 or Newer All Whell Drive Police Pursuit Utility <br />Vehicles — Spec B was to replace SUV's or moving more sedans to SUV's and how many are <br />being purchased. He asked if the City was prepared for the higher cost of ownership and operation. <br />Attorney Schmidt advised that Jeff Hudak or Aaron Knepper would be able to answer these <br />questions, noting the request to advertise does not specify the number of vehicles. Typically, they <br />will advertise as a plus or a minus (+/-) based upon evolving needs. <br />Board Clerk Theresa Heffner shared an email from Katy Raj ski at Central Services that stated they <br />would be looking to purchase thirty-four vehicles plus or minus (34 +/-). Attorney Schmidt advised <br />that they may be trying to lock in some pricing on the 2025 model or newer, sometimes you're able <br />to capture some savings in 2026 based upon the needs. <br />LICENSES AND PERMITS <br />President Maradik noted some discrepancies regarding item 8.A.2: Concept Therapy for a Ground <br />Mounted Sign. The memo provided has a favorable and an unfavorable recommendation, so she <br />recommended that Engineering and Community Investment discuss the encroachment with the <br />applicant because there is potential for future infrastructure in the area that could impact the sign <br />that is being requested. She added that we don't want to approve the installation of the sign and <br />then make them move it because of a public works project. <br />Mr. Gilot was advised by legal counsel to disclose any potential conflicts of interest, so he noted <br />for the Board that he takes his wife to Concept Therapy and spends about five (5) hours a week <br />there. He was never asked for advice on the sign request. <br />Director of Public Works Eric Horvath and Attorney Schmidt noted that Mr. Gilot is just a <br />customer so the is no conflict of interest. <br />AGREEMENTS/CONTRACTS/PROPOSALS/ADDENDA <br />Mr. Gilot noted that for item 7.B.: Amendment No. 6 to Professional Services Agreement with <br />Veritas, LLC had been extended and asked how long the agreement would continue. Attorney <br />Schmidt advised that there's two (2) things going on here. First, because the project is still under <br />federal review, the City has to have a site manager associated with it to be in compliance. Secondly, <br />while this contract is not to exceed $80,000, this is similar to the one we had last year. Veritas built <br />in seventeen percent (17%) of the cost that was allocated for it, so there needs to be someone <br />driving the process to ensure we are spending that amount of money for the actual work that's <br />