Anderson Redevelopment Commission

MINUTES ANDERSON REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION December 22, 2015 BUSINESS PUBLIC MEETING 4:30 p.m. Contract: Milestone Contractors K.P. Roadway ED Conference Room #1 Construction Scatterfield West Road Project 120 East 8th Street Mr. Winkler stated the contract includes an alternate Anderson, IN 46016 bid for recycling of concrete. The contract is the lowest responsible bidder. If the recycling component MEMBERS PRESENT were removed then, 3D would have been the lowest. Kevin Sulc, Vice President To ensure the lowest bid, the City Engineer reviewed Joe Royer, Secretary the calculations with the design engineer. Based on Ben Orcutt, Member these reviews with the recycling alternative, the Justin Puckett, Member lowest bidder was Milestone. There were issues voiced at the Board of Public Works meeting MEMBERS ABSENT regarding the lowest bid and the estimates on the Carolyn Scott, President recycling and that is why he requested the City Engineer review it. STAFF PRESENT Mr. Spyers stated he requested that American Ann Marie Bauer, Attorney StructurePoint estimate the amount of recycling Greg Winkler, Director material. Milestone estimated it at 15,000 tons, Michael Frischkorn, Deputy Director American StructurePoint estimated it at 14,000 tons, April Phillips, Financial Specialist and 3D estimated it at 9,665 tons. Based on this estimate, we think there is value in the recycled OTHERS PRESENT materials for use on this project and other projects in Cam Paddock, E & B Paving this area. His recommendation is to accept the bid Brandon Buck, 3D Company Inc. from Milestone including the recycling. Mike Spyers, City Engineer Pete Heuer, Board of Public Works Mr. Sulc asked if they could do the project with or without the recycling component. ROLL CALL AND DECLARATION OF QUORUM Mr. Spyers answered yes. Mr. Sulc called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. and declared a quorum with four (4) members present. Mr. Sulc asked about the value of the recycling. MINUTES Mr. Spyers stated new material is $10 per ton, but Mr. Sulc moved to approve the December 1, 2015, that does not include hauling to the site. minutes. Mr. Puckett seconded. Motion passed unanimously; 4 yes, 0 no. Mr. Sulc asked if the material was not recycled would there be a cost to haul it off the site. Mr. Spyers answered yes. There is a lower cost with recycling. The value of recycling is about $100,000 to $150,000 for an estimated cost of $40,000. Mr. Sulc asked if the material was recycled would it Mr. Sulc asked what was the bid including the stay in the possession of the City and used on site. alternative. Mr. Spyers stated Milestone bid $2,539,938 and Mr. Spyers answered some of it will be used on the without the recycling it was $2,535,788. 3D’s bid with site and the balance would be used for the other hauling it off was $2,499,700 and recycling it was projects in the area. $2,547,899. Mr. Sulc reiterated that with the recycling of the Mr. Sulc mentioned that the Commission should be material it would stay on the site. made aware of the bid process beforehand. The Commission did approve the project and the contract Mr. Winkler did say a contractor would be paid to with American StructurePoint; however, there has move portions of material as it is needed for other been no discussion or information given to the projects, but it doesn’t compare to the cost of hauling Commission about the construction. It was assumed it off site. when the project was added the Commission would pay for it, but the Commission should still be informed Mr. Sulc asked about the estimated amount of that the bid process is underway. He requested a recycled concrete. little more communication. The members did not know this contract was coming until an email was Mr. Spyers answered that Milestone estimated 15,000 received about having a special meeting. tons, StructurePoint estimate 13,900 tons, and 3Ds original discussion was estimated at 5,000 tons, but Mr. Spyers explained that with the changes in the bid that came back was for about 9,665 tons. administrations if there was not a special meeting this contract may not have come to the Commission until Mr. Winkler stated he was concerned so he spoke with February. Mr. Spyers and others regarding this. He has been around construction projects where recycled materials Mr. Sulc understood. He requested the Commission were used. He wanted to make sure there was a receive more communication when moving from the decent quality control process as far as extraction of planning phase to the construction phase. metal in the concrete and the size of the aggregate. Mr. Brandon Buck, 3D Company, stated they are Mr. Puckett asked about State Statute. based out of Muncie, but 90 percent of the subcontractors and suppliers are based in Anderson. Mr. Winkler stated State Statute says the lowest most Milestone will not use local contractors because they responsible bid is to be accepted. If the alternate cannot due to union contracts. He respectfully recycling was not part of the contract than 3D would disagreed with the estimates. In the bidding process, be the lowest bidder. With the alternate bid with everyone has a different way of measuring. If all the recycling as part of the overall bid package then measurements that Milestone and American Milestone is the lowest bid. He does champion using StructurePoint came up with are true, it still leaves local contractors, but he does not know the him unsettled due to the way the specifications were mechanism to make that happen. He discussed this written for the project which clearly state that all with Ashley Hopper, City Attorney. materials must meet INDO specifications. Every municipality on State jobs throughout the State bid to Mr. Spyers explained that 3D is not local either. They meet the guidelines in the book. Recycling concrete are out of Muncie and Milestone is out of Shelbyville. will not and won’t ever meet the specifications. He Each has the option to use local contractors. 3D’s bid has talked to INDOT engineers. He can show the was $2,499,700. Milestones bid with recycling was Commission in the book where it states what $2,539,938. The difference is about $40,000. gradation and testing process the material has to go through. It is not an acceptable material. This Mr. Sulc asked what the Alternate number was. project clearly stated that in the specifications and not to mention this project butts up to a State highway. Mr. Spyers stated 4B. This requires a permit from INDOT. INDOT will not let this material be used on any of their right of ways. Anderson Redevelopment Commission: December 22, 2015 Page 2 If this material is not good enough for INDOT to use on their roads why would the City of Anderson want it Mr. Winkler explained that the value of this material used on theirs. on this site at this time is much different because they are in the process of rebuilding a street and there are Mr. Spyers stated there is a special requirement for multiple building projects that are scheduled to take recycled concrete. place on this property. His argument would be quite simply that it has a significant higher value now then Mr. Buck stated that was for INDOT projects only. If it would have ten years ago. He is right it sat there someone is doing an INDOT road, then the material for a long time because nothing was going on in the from that road can be recycled and reused on that community, but that is not the case now. project only. They will not accept material from a building pad, footer or foundation to be used as fill or Mr. Buck asked if he has seen the site. subbase for a State highway. Mr. Winkler answered yes, he drives by there at least Mr. Spyers stated he has no problem using recycled three times a week and was there today. concrete for a parking lot or roadway. Mr. Cam Paddock, E&B Paving, stated they also bid on Mr. Buck stated this project was clearly stated in the the project. This is spending more money to create specifications and they bid the job to meet those more risk. There is a projected number, but it is only specifications. It has to come from an INDOT cap a projection. There is no telling what the material will certified source. How can you bring in a crushing be. The Commission is spending $40,000 more to plant and call that an INDOT cap certified source? create more risk versus saving $40,000 off the top. Is There are pre-approved sources that have been the reward worth the risk? tested from INDOT. Mr. Buck stated the concrete has been out there for Mr. Spyers asked how 3D was going to recycle it. years. Concrete deteriorates over time. Has anyone They bid on the recycling portion. taken core samples to see what the Commission is getting into? He would hate for the City to pay the Mr. Buck stated he had his ways. extra money to crush all that and then realize this material is not usable. Mr. Spyers asked if they would meet INDOT specifications. Mr. Frischkorn asked if 3D had been awarded the contract what would they do if they found out the Mr. Buck stated to his knowledge, but that doesn’t concrete was not what it should have been. mean it can used on the project. Mr. Buck stated this is a huge gamble. If he was Mr. Winkler stated it may not be able to be used on awarded the contract, he would have tried to talk the the portion that abuts the State Highway or right of Commission out of doing it because it is a huge risk. ways, but all of 27th Street has to be reconstructed. Mr. Winkler explained that they have thought about Mr. Buck stated if this material is used under the road this. Mr. Spyers went through a lot of extra effort to then they are clearly defying the specifications of the look into it. He had the same questions. The project. questions raised are fair questions. He has talked to Mr. Spyers and other engineers about this. As a lay Mr. Winkler respectfully disagreed. He does not think person who has been around a lot of construction, he this is an issue, but what he thinks does not matter. feels comfortable with it. He will stand by Mr. Spyers, P.E. Mr. Royer appreciated the input. This is not his area Mr. Buck stated when the General Motors plants were of expertise. He has had a long history of relying on demolished the concrete was left in piles for years Mr. Spyers and his work. While it may be a risk, it is because nobody had a value for them. If the material a risk that Mr. Spyers feels is worth taking. He does had such a high value why wasn’t it used? not have a reason to vote against that. Anderson Redevelopment Commission: December 22, 2015 Page 3  Mr. Royer moved to approve the contract with Mr. Paddock has worked with Mr. Spyers for about Milestone. Mr. Orcutt seconded with the two years and has nothing but good things to say understanding that he was relying on the outside about him. He is here for his company and to look at influence from the engineers and lawyers and all the options. assumed everything that was presented was accurate and he has no reason to believe otherwise. He would Mr. Buck stated this is not just about the job. He has prefer a local option, but according to State statute been a resident of Anderson since he was five years they must go with the lowest bid. There seems to be old. It is more than him wanting this job, they have some confusion regarding this, but according to plenty of other work. He would like nothing more everything that has been presented today he feels than to build this job and be proud of it and put their they should go with the recommendation of staff. name, E&B Paving, West Electric, IMI and other local The motion passed unanimously; 4 yes, 0 no. contractors’ names on it. Milestone will build the job and pack up and leave. They are a huge MISCELLANEOUS conglomeration. This job means nothing to them. They are a multi-million if not billion-dollar Strategic Planning Meeting Corporation. Mr. Sulc stated a subcommittee was appointed by President Scott. A meeting was not able to be Mr. Royer appreciates this. The Commission always scheduled with Mr. Eicks. He encouraged the presses for local contracts. There have been times members to continue with strategic planning in the when the Commission has stopped things from New Year. happening when they felt the local companies did not get a good opportunity. The Commission cares about AT&T Easement this as well. Mr. Spyers mentioned that AT&T submitted a revised easement. They wanted clarification basically stating Mr. Buck mentioned that he was not a lawyer, but he everything was to be under ground. They did comply questioned the legality of this. The alternative 4b is with the Commission’s request to go around the nothing but projection and there was not a value put outside of the property. on the material in the specs until after the fact. This is a number that American StructurePoint put on the ADJOURNMENT material. Whether this is a good number or not he Mr. Sulc moved to adjourn. Meeting adjourned at would question. 3D is the lowest responsive bidder. 5:05 p.m. Mr. Winkler stated the lowest responsive bid after taking the alternate into account is Milestone. Mr. Spyers stated Milestone is the lowest bidder. The alternates were in the specifications. 3D had a chance to bid on the alternates. They did not bid lower than Milestone. Mr. Winkler stated he did not want anybody walking out of this meeting thinking that the lowest responsive bidder was not selected, because it was. We have followed the statute. We have followed what the City Engineer has said. He has no choice but to stand on that. A discussion was held on how to save money on this job. Anderson Redevelopment Commission: December 22, 2015 Page 4