1 OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PRE-BID MEETING (Project 03(2009) PID 80444 - - - Transcript of proceedings had in the above-entitled cause at the offices of the Ohio Department of Transportation, District 2, 317 E. Poe Road, Bowling Green, Ohio, on Monday, January 5, 2009, at 9:03 a.m. GREENE REPORTING P.O. BOX 352767 TOLEDO, OHIO 43635-2767 (419) 843-1514 2 1 PANEL: 2 OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 2 3 Deb Baldwin 4 Michael T. Gramza Dan Meyer 5 Jim Moore Chris Beaulieu 6 - - - 7 P R O C E E D I N G S 8 9 MS. BALDWIN: I'd like to welcome everyone to 10 ODOT, District 2. I'm Deb Baldwin, the 11 design project manager for this project. 12 This is the prebid meeting for 13 Project 03 of 09, Lucas-24-6.19, PID 80444. 14 The sale date is 2-4-09. 15 Let's begin by taking care of 16 housekeeping. Please make sure you've signed 17 in. Remember to turn cell phones off or on 18 vibrate. Rest rooms are through the door 19 over there to the left, and they are on the 20 left. The badges to get through are 21 underneath the sign-in sheet. I also want to 22 remind you that if you have a question to 23 speak clearly and loudly enough for the 24 reporter to hear you. 25 I'd like to start introductions with 3 1 the Central Office video joining us from 2 Central office. If you gentlemen could tell 3 us who's there? 4 MR. JOHNSON: My name is Adam Johnson, 5 Federal Highway Administration. 6 MR. HUMPHREY: David Humphrey, pavement 7 engineering, ODOT. 8 MR. ROSTOFER: Don Rostofer for ODOT, Office 9 of Environmental Services. 10 MR. MORSE: Aric Morse, Pavement Engineering. 11 MS. SMITH. Adrienne Smith. I'm with 12 Environmental Services. 13 MS. BALDWIN: Deb Baldwin with District 2, 14 ODOT. 15 MR. GRAMZA: Mike Gramza, District 2, 16 Construction. 17 MR. MEYER: Dan Meyer, District 2, 18 Construction. 19 MR. MOORE: Jim Moore, Mannik & Smith. 20 MR. BEAULIEU: Chris Beaulieu, Mannik & 21 Smith. 22 MR. BEHRMAN: Aaron Behrman, District 2, 23 production administrator. 24 MR. DILLE: Pat Dille, ODOT, Construction. 25 MS. POLLICK: Theresa Pollick, Public 4 1 Information, ODOT. 2 MR. SMITH: Mike Smith, Mannik & Smith. 3 MR. HEYERLY: Jeremy Heyerly, Mannik & Smith. 4 MR. WINKLEMAN: Larry Winkleman, Miller 5 Brothers. 6 MR. GILLEN: Larry Gillen, Miller Brothers. 7 MR. WING: Craig Wing, E.S. Wagner. 8 MR. KETHEL: Chuck Kethel, E.S. Wagner. 9 MR. PFEIFFER: Mike Pfeiffer, E.S. Wagner. 10 MR. WILSON: Jim Wilson, E.S. Wagner. 11 MR. SHEALY: Doug Shealy, Mosser 12 Construction. 13 MR. GEFFE: Brian Geffe, Mosser Construction. 14 MR. BLACK: Jamie Black, Waterville Gas. 15 MR. MARSHALL: Jim Marshall, Village of 16 Waterville. 17 MR. HAMMON: Richard Hammon, Village of 18 Waterville. 19 MR. HARTLEY: Jack Hartley, Miller Cable 20 Company. 21 MR. DEPOLO: Matt Depolo, Miller Cable. 22 MR. PARKER: Rusty Parker with Mosser 23 Construction. 24 MR. HECKERT: Eric Heckert, District 2. 25 MS. POE: Christine Poe, Ajax Paving. 5 1 MR. GIESLER: Jeff Giesler, Gerken Paving. 2 MR. LEBARR-WEBER: Andrea Weber, Gerken 3 Paving. 4 MR. HAAR: Tom Haar, Shelly Company. 5 MR. ALEXANDER: Brian Alexander, Posen 6 Construction. 7 MR. KING: Tom King, District 2, real estate. 8 MR. NOBLE: Greg Noble, ODOT, construction. 9 MR. MCHUGH: Tim McHugh, District 2, 10 construction. 11 MR. GECKLE: David Geckle, District 2. 12 MR. BARE: Harry Bare, District 2. 13 MR. LEROY: Chris LeRoy, ODOT, District 2, 14 survey. 15 MR. HIBBETT: Chris Hibbett, ODOT, District 16 2. 17 MS. Fahy: Julie Fahy, District 2. 18 MR. CHECK: Matt Check, George Igel. 19 MR. CLAMMAICHELLA: Mike Clammaichella, 20 Roulen?? 21 MR. PULCHEON: Jon Pulcheon, George Igel 22 Company. 23 MR. REED: Jim Reed, Teco. 24 MR. COOLEY: Michelle Cooley, Toledo Edison. 25 MS. MORSE: Cindy Morse, Toledo Edison. 6 1 MR. BAUM: Tom Baum, Time Warner Cable. 2 MR. HOHENBREAK: Gary Hohenbreak, Time 3 Warner. 4 MR. WILLIAMS: Mel Williams, Miller Brothers 5 Construction. 6 MR. ZEISLOFF: Randy Zeisloff, Miller 7 Brothers Construction. 8 MS. BALDWIN: We got everyone? Let's do a 9 quick overview of the project. This project 10 is a proposed four-lane divided highway on 11 new alignment. It is the second 12 project of the main alignment being sold. 13 The approximate length is 6.55 miles. It 14 begins at mile marker 6.19 in Lucas County 15 and ends at mile marker 12.74. 16 The project contains one full 17 interchange at State Route 64, and a partial 18 interchange at the tie-in to the existing 24, 19 two overhead structures at Neowash and 20 Neapolis-Waterville Road with MSE walls, four 21 structures that will be under US-24 at Dutch 22 and Waterville-Monclova Roads. 23 There is also two type A reinforced 24 concrete arches on pedestals for the railroad 25 and Ramp D tie-in area. The tie-in area also 7 1 includes five MSE walls and one retaining 2 wall with a mural, a rehab of the two 3 structures over Stitt Road and Johns Manville 4 railroad spur. Other structures are two box 5 culverts over Barnsworth Ditch at the 6 mainline of US-24 and Fischer Drive; type A 7 culverts at Whitmire Ditch, Sauder Ditch, 8 Blyston Ditch, Meyer Ditch and Ditch No. 18; 9 two storm sewers crossing the tie-in area of 10 the existing 24. There's also an approximate 11 1000 feet of relocated of Sauder Ditch. 12 Construction also includes three 13 new side roads with cul-de-sacs, Moosman, 14 Fischer and Kay Drives, including also the 15 relocation of Noward Road and realignment of 16 the entrance ramp heading west from Fallen 17 Timbers Road. 18 UTILITY CONCERNS 19 Construction includes the relocation 20 of two sanitary force mains and waterline and 21 fire suppression in the Ramp D tunnel area. 22 ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS 23 Wetland mitigation areas, wetland 24 areas and archeological sites should not be 25 used for borrow fill and equipment storage. 8 1 Make note that Item 609, snow fence located 2 south of Dutch Road, must be in place to 3 protect the archeological site 33LU759 at 4 all times. No in stream blasting will be 5 permitted without written permission of OD&R 6 per the Ohio Revised Code 1533.58. 7 There are two alternate bid items in 8 this project. The first one is for the 9 pavement. This pavement will be used on the 10 mainline and the ramps from Station 327+00 to 11 Station 609+25.05. The first alternate is 12 Item 880, asphalt concrete, seven-year 13 warranty. The District recommends Item 409 14 longitudinal joint sealer. The second 15 alternate is Item 896, Portland Cement 16 concrete pavement, 11 1/2 inches thick, 17 seven-year warranty. The remaining ramps and 18 pavement from 609+25 to the end of the 19 project will not be part of the alternate 20 bid for the pavement. 21 The second item that is an 22 alternate bid is texture treatment on the 23 retaining wall. The two alternates will be 24 for texture to be a mural as shown on Sheet 25 1001A or for the Asher stone texture 9 1 embankment. 2 Mike Gramza, District 2, construction 3 engineer, will now give us a quick rundown 4 of the policy that is being proposed by 5 the Waterville Township trustees. 6 MR. GRAMZA: Okay. There's been a lot of 7 discussion with Waterville Township about how 8 they're going to handle their permitting 9 process for borrow pits. 10 And I had just got off the phone with 11 Les Discher, he's the chairman for the 12 Waterville township trustees, and what 13 Waterville Township is planning to do with 14 their permitting process is, they are going 15 to go to a Site Review Permit from a Special 16 Use Permit. They're going to propose this. 17 There's a meeting on January 14th at 7:30 at 18 Waterville Township Hall that is going to 19 formalize the requirements. But they are 20 going to look at a or propose a Site Review 21 Permit with the exception that they will have 22 an open viewing for the public of these 23 proposals. 24 The way that the process is going to 25 work is, a contractor submits the borrow pit 10 1 plans, meeting all restrictions to the 2 zoning inspector. The zoning inspectors 3 will submit to the county engineer for 4 review. The county engineer is saying one 5 to two weeks for review. If everything's 6 in order, the township will hold a meeting, 7 special date, if necessary, and they would 8 like to review all of these requests at 9 once, although I don't know if that will be 10 possible or not, and then they will give 11 approval or disapproval at that time. 12 So, if everything was working 13 perfectly, if you guys could, you know, get 14 your plans together right after the 14th, 15 they set the requirements on the 14th, and 16 you have your plans ready to go, based on the 17 restrictions that they have, and I've got 18 a copy of those restrictions, they're all 19 tentative, but they should give you enough to 20 get started. If you got those to the 21 township shortly after the 14th, it's very 22 possible you could know if you got approval 23 or disapproval of your site by the time of 24 the bid. 25 Okay. I guess I'll take any questions 11 1 on that. And I can just tell you what I know 2 at this point on that. 3 MR. PFEIFFER: Mike Pfeiffer, E.S. Wagner. 4 When are the trustee going to get together 5 and vote on this again? 6 MR. GRAMZA: The trustees will be voting on 7 this on January 14th at 7:30 at the township 8 hall. And then the plans, my understanding, 9 the plans could be submitted the next day. 10 MR. WILSON: Jim Wilson, E.S. Wagner Company. 11 Mike, going through, looking at these plans, 12 there's numerous references to archeological 13 conditions that have been determined within 14 the footprint of the right-of-way and so 15 forth. 16 Obviously, from a borrow perspective, 17 we want to try to find the borrow as close as 18 we can. The problem is now, or that's going 19 to add to this problem is, I'm assuming, that 20 you're going to want a cultural review or 21 archeological review on adjacent properties 22 for borrow pits since, obviously, you found 23 something within the footprint of the 24 project. That process is not -- from a 25 timing perspective, you're not going to have 12 1 that information to know that what you're 2 proposing is a good borrow location or a bad 3 borrow location until you, if we're required 4 to have this archeological review of the 5 borrow areas, within that time frame. 6 MS. BALDWIN: They can't use the 7 archeological site -- 8 MR. GRAMZA: Well, they're designated, right? 9 But he's talking about sites that would not 10 be designated outside of the limits of the 11 project that they'd go to use the borrow. 12 Is there anything -- I guess maybe 13 Central Office can help us with that. 14 CENTRAL OFFICE Joe Rostofer CMS has -- I think it's 15 107, Section 107 has specific requirements 16 for ways to borrow sites and how they have to 17 be cleared before you can use it. 18 MR. WILSON: I understand that fully. 19 However -- and right now your proposal 20 doesn't call out a cultural review. And the 21 way the spec reads is that if the proposal 22 calls it out that then we're required to do 23 it. 24 I guess I'm stumbling with the fact 25 that you found things within the footprint of 13 1 the roadway. And I'm wondering, are you 2 going to require us to now go out beyond the 3 footprint of the roadway into these adjacent 4 properties and perform this review because 5 typically -- 6 CENTRAL OFFICE???? Yes. CMS requires it. 7 MR. WILSON: Unless you call it out in the 8 proposal. But you haven't called it out in 9 the proposal. 10 CENTRAL OFFICE Don Rostofer We're talking about two 11 separate things here. If you're talking 12 about what ODOT requires outside of what this 13 other permitting process this gentleman's 14 talking about, ODOT requires the contractor, 15 through CMS, to clear environmentally all of 16 the waste and borrow sites before they can 17 use them. 18 MR. WILSON: You're talking two different 19 things. There's an environmental which, 20 without question, you got to do that for 21 every borrow pit, period. But in addition to 22 that, there's a cultural review which, it 23 appears to me, that you have cultural issues 24 because you called them out in your plans. 25 That cultural review is a requirement, if 14 1 it's required in the proposal. 2 My question or my concern is, is that 3 since you have found things, are we now going 4 to have to provide you with a cultural review 5 on these adjacent borrow pits? 6 MR. GRAMZA: We'll take that question under 7 advisement and get you a response to that. 8 MR. WILSON: Okay. Obviously we want to know 9 what that cultural information is that you 10 have found, what are you seeing, because 11 that's going to impact us. 12 MR. GRAMZA: Correct. 13 MR. PFEIFFER: I've got a question. Mike 14 Pfeiffer, E.S. Wagner. Mike, the January 15 14th meeting, if it doesn't pass, then we go 16 back to square one. And we've discussed -- 17 and that timeline to get the approval of the 18 borrow pits we go into probably mid April? 19 MR. GRAMZA: The process that they were 20 talking about previously, my understanding, 21 would take about four months to go through 22 the process, if they go through this Special 23 Use Permit. 24 So -- but my understanding is, this is 25 on its way. But we can't guarantee that 15 1 until the meeting on the 14th. 2 MR. WINKLEMAN: Larry Winkleman with Miller 3 Brothers. Mike, is ODOT going to confirm an 4 addendum, the results of the January 14th 5 vote by the trustees, so that all contractors 6 know whether it's a site review process, as 7 you're discussing now, or if it's going to be 8 the longer process? 9 MR. GRAMZA: I would think it would be a good 10 idea that we do that and that we include the 11 final restrictions that they make also in 12 that addendum. 13 MR. WINKLEMAN: So we can expect an addendum 14 after the 14th to clarify that? 15 MR. GRAMZA: Correct. 16 MR. WILSON: Jim Wilson, E.S. Wagner. Mike, 17 you know, one of our biggest concerns as it 18 relates to the borrow pits within Waterville 19 Township, in most cases the borrow pits 20 pricing and everything seems to be somewhat 21 reasonable and so forth, but in this 22 particular location, because of the quantity 23 of borrow that you're going to have to have, 24 and the magnitude of the unit or the borrow 25 cost in excess or somewhere in the $3 a yard 16 1 range, that's the number that has been thrown 2 out there, this is pretty significant. So 3 that's why we're concerned about the borrow 4 for this project and the timeline of being 5 able to tie this risk down prior to 6 submitting our bid. 7 MR. GRAMZA: Correct. And I think, like I 8 say, if the process works the way they're 9 proposing, and you guys can get your plans 10 together to meet their restrictions, as soon 11 as possible after the 14th, then you've got 12 a good chance to get some answer prior to 13 bid. 14 MR. SHEALY: Doug Shealy, Mosser 15 Construction. I don't feel you're being 16 realistic because you could have six 17 contractors bidding this five to six sites 18 each. You could have 30 to 40 sites that 19 they got to review in two weeks. 20 MR. GRAMZA: Yes. It will be a difficult 21 task for the county. The hope is that a lot 22 of these would be the same sites. So it 23 might not be as onerous. But this is the -- 24 and we're working with the township to get 25 the easiest method possible. And we're 17 1 coming down from that four-month process down 2 to this. And this seems -- if we can make 3 this work it's going to be a lot better than 4 the alternative. And the other alternative 5 is, if this gets tied up in non-approval, 6 their contention in Waterville Township is, 7 is that there can be no borrow pits. 8 They've got a restriction, a one-acre pond 9 restriction that they're tying to borrow pits 10 and you wouldn't be able to put a borrow pit 11 in Waterville Township unless they pass some 12 kind of legislation or some kind of 13 ordinance. 14 MR. PFEIFFER: Mike Pfeiffer, E.S. Wagner. 15 Mike, has ODOT given any consideration for 16 any of the state owned property along the 17 proposed 24 as a potential borrow source? 18 MR. GRAMZA: We will evaluate all the 19 property we own for potential borrow. 20 MS. BALDWIN: Thanks, Mike. While we're 21 still on the embankment, the aerial survey 22 variation that was identified in the first 23 project is going to be addressed in an 24 addendum soon. The district has 25 reconstructed a proposed tin and is comparing 18 1 it to the new Lidar existing tin that was 2 adjusted and checked. 3 The new embankment and excavation 4 quantities will be adjusted in a table 5 format. The benchmark from the beginning to 6 609+25.05 will be adjusted higher, 0.5 feet. 7 There will not be an adjustment beyond 8 609+25.05 to the end of the project. This 9 area was conventionally survey method. 10 The adjusted profile for the mainline 11 and the tie-ins to the crossovers will be 12 supplied, hopefully, with the addendum or 13 shortly after. The District is adjusting the 14 benchmark of the plans to make the embankment 15 quantities similar to what is in the original 16 plan. 17 There also will be an addendum which 18 will address the aesthetics of the parapets 19 of the structures. 20 MOT 21 MOT was designed with all the construction 22 projects being considered. The following 23 considerations must be followed. County Road 24 143, Neowash, must be open to traffic before 25 road closures will be allowed on County Road 19 1 136 or Township Road 137. Short-term 2 closures will only be allowed on County Road 3 124 and County Road 133. State Route 64 will 4 only have a six-day closure to do the tie-in 5 for the temporary road and shall not be 6 closed during the closure of County Road 136, 7 Neapolis-Waterville. 8 Fischer Drive must be constructed prior 9 to the beginning of the construction of the 10 Dutch Road structure. Kay Drive must be 11 constructed prior to the beginning of the 12 construction of the Waterville-Monclova Road 13 structure. 14 Because of safety concerns, no 15 traffic can be diverted thru the tunnel, 16 which is the precast structure on pedestals, call it 17 pylons, during the construction tie-in 18 until the construction of the tunnel is fully 19 complete overhead and thru. So nothing 20 can go through that tunnel until everything is 21 complete around it and on top of it. So do 22 not plan on trying to use that tunnel for 23 MOT. 24 Place temporary pavement and construct 25 the crossovers for the existing 24 needed to 20 1 diverge the traffic to the westbound lanes, 2 construct the eastbound Stitt Road structures 3 and Ramp, then diverge the traffic until 4 newly constructed Ramp C, and construct the 5 remainder of the interchange. 6 There also has been two addendums that 7 were issued prior to this. The first 8 addendum addressed additions to the field 9 office type C note, adjustment to the price 10 adjustment exclusion table, clarification of 11 the MSE wall texture alternate bid. 12 The second addendum addressed Class 6 13 seeding and mulching, revised benchmark, 14 overlapping quantities between Kay and 15 mainline, removal of the extra fill for MOT, 16 and a new Sheet 1008 for the steel bar 17 clarification. 18 We'll now open the floor for questions. 19 Please state your full name and affiliation 20 and speak loudly so the reporter can hear 21 you. 22 MR. WILSON: Jim Wilson, E.S. Wagner Company. 23 As of this morning there's only one addendum 24 that's out there. And it addressed -- what I 25 saw in the EBS addendum, it addressed 21 1 quantity provisions for MSE wall, earth work 2 and so forth. You say there's two? 3 MS. BALDWIN: There is a second one. I 4 thought it would be out there. And I didn't 5 check this morning. Sorry. I sent it before 6 I went on vacation. So there will be a 7 second one that's coming with the Class C 8 seeding and mulching. 9 MR. WINKLEMAN: Larry Winkleman, Miller 10 Brothers Construction. Addendum 1 makes some 11 adjustments in quantities around the 12 alternates and also says that to have a 13 responsive bid we have to bid both 14 alternates. 15 My question is, as far as award of the 16 contract, I don't see anything that weights 17 the two alternates. In other words, the 18 lowest alternate would be awarded the 19 project. For example, if the low bidder had 20 an asphalt alternate and the second bidder 21 was a hundred thousand dollars higher and had 22 a concrete alternate -- 23 MS. BALDWIN: You must bid both of them. 24 MR. WINKLEMAN: I understand we have to bid 25 both. But there's no weighting on the part 22 1 of ODOT that would change the award. The 2 lowest is the criteria for award? 3 MR. GRAMZA: That is my understanding. And 4 the department will weigh, may weigh a life 5 cycle analysis at that point to decide if 6 they want, which option they want to go with. 7 MR. WINKLEMAN: In the past, if that's the 8 case, that's been outlined at the time of 9 bid and a value for that established. 10 MR. GRAMZA: Not between the bidders, but 11 just between the selected awarded contract. 12 MR. WINKLEMAN: So the criteria for award 13 will be the lowest bidder irregardless of 14 alternate pavement type? 15 MR. GRAMZA: Correct. 16 MR. WINKLEMAN: Okay. But then once the 17 project has been awarded, the department may 18 go to the awarded low bidder and choose -- 19 MR. GRAMZA: Correct. You got anything else 20 from pavements on that, Aric or Dave? 21 MR. HUMPHREY: No. That's my understanding. 22 That's my understanding. 23 MS. BALDWIN: For the reporter, who was that 24 that said that? Dave? 25 MR. HUMPHREY: David Humphrey. 23 1 MS. BALDWIN: Thank you. 2 MR. HUMPHREY: You're welcome. 3 MS. BALDWIN: Any more? 4 MR. WINKLEMAN: Larry Winkleman with Miller 5 Brothers. Just reviewing some of your 6 comments on the traffic that you made, on 7 Plan Sheet 67 at the top of the third column 8 it says, County Road 143 shall complete and 9 open traffic prior to starting any other 10 work. 11 Do you literally mean no work can start 12 prior to that or do you just mean that we 13 can't close any other roads? 14 MS. BALDWIN: We're going to have to look at 15 that. 16 MR. WINKLEMAN: I'm assuming we could begin 17 drainage, excavation, those types of 18 operations, in areas that aren't impacted by, 19 clearing and grubbing areas not impacted. 20 But I just would like to clarify that any 21 other work statement. 22 MS. BALDWIN: Okay. What sheet? 23 MR. WINKLEMAN: 67. 24 MR. GILLEN: 67. 25 MR. WINKLEMAN: The plans refer to -- 24 1 there's no calculations in for the pavement. 2 The plans refer to some office calcs. But I 3 believe those now might have been posted to 4 the web site. 5 MS. BALDWIN: Yes. They should have been. I 6 completely forgot to post all the 7 electronics. 8 MR. WINKLEMAN: I was out of the 9 office last week but I got an e-mail from 10 some people in the office that I think they 11 might be there. 12 MS. BALDWIN: I posted all the electronics 13 last week. Yeah. 14 MR. WINKLEMAN: Okay. And does -- that 15 includes the -- 16 MS. BALDWIN: The pavement calcs is in there. 17 MR. WINKLEMAN: The pavement calcs and the -- 18 MS. BALDWIN: The spreadsheets. 19 MR. WINKLEMAN: -- earth work files as well? 20 MS. BALDWIN: Not the new earth work files. 21 The earth work files are in there for the 22 temporary -- 23 MR. WINKLEMAN: Okay. 24 MS. BALDWIN: -- but the new ones are not. 25 We're getting that together. 25 1 MR. WINKLEMAN: Okay. 2 MR. HARTLEY: Jack Hartley with Miller Cable 3 Company. I have some questions regarding the 4 electrical and fire warning system in the 5 tunnel. First of all, the detector wire, 6 they call it protecto wire detail, in the 7 ceiling of the tunnel there is no detail. 8 Is that something we are to design? 9 MS. BALDWIN: I will have to get the 10 designers to check that. 11 MR. HARTLEY: And while we're on the fire 12 system, they're not specific whether they 13 need two independent means of communications 14 for warning; in other words, hard line, 15 phone, cell phone, radio, whatever. It's not 16 specific on that. 17 Are you going to require two means, 18 independent means of communications for the 19 fire alarm? And, correct me if I'm wrong, 20 but the tunnel, I believe, is one of the last 21 pieces of roadway open and it's not used for 22 any temporary traffic. 23 MS. BALDWIN: It is not used for any 24 temporary traffic. 25 MR. HARTLEY: So the reason I ask is, in the 26 1 past we've had temporary traffic going 2 through tunnels and it's a question of who 3 picks up the power bills after the testing 4 period. And I assume that after everything 5 is tested, the ten-day test, and before 6 opening, ODOT will pick up the power service 7 before the road is open. There's a lot of 8 lights in that tunnel. 9 MS. BALDWIN: Yes. Yeah. 10 MR. HARTLEY: That's all I have. 11 MS. BALDWIN: Okay. We'll have to check on 12 that. Any more questions? 13 MR. WINKLEMAN: Larry Winkleman with Miller 14 Brothers. On Plan Sheet 61 in the third 15 column there's a discussion about 16 construction noise. And it talks about 17 construction within residential areas. 18 Could you define for us what is 19 considered on this project residential areas 20 and what is not considered residential areas? 21 MS. BALDWIN: That has to do with Waterville 22 Township's -- they have a noise ordinance. 23 So we have to address -- but we'll address 24 that. 25 MR. WINKLEMAN: Okay. 27 1 MS. BALDWIN: The gentleman back here. 2 MR. WILLIAMS: Mel Williams with Millers 3 Brothers Construction. In Addendum 1 on 4 Sheet 1001A where you've added the mural to 5 the MSE wall, in Note 4 on that sheet you 6 refer to a graffiti guard, and it, also in 7 Sheet 4 you say, the graffiti guard is to be 8 compatible with the applied color. 9 Now, I don't see anything in the 10 addendum or anything that shows that mural 11 having a color. Is this something that's 12 going to be added or is the mural just going 13 to be the color of the epoxy urethane -- 14 MS. BALDWIN: Epoxy urethane. 15 MR. WILLIAMS: -- and is the graffiti guard 16 limits to be only the limits of the mural and 17 not as it refers to in plural, walls, in the 18 note? 19 MS. BALDWIN: Okay. We'll clarify that. 20 MR. WILSON: Jim Wilson, E.S. Wagner Company. 21 As it relates to haul routes for the project, 22 are there any routes that you have in mind 23 that you don't want a contractor to use? I 24 know that we have to submit the ones we'd 25 like to use. But is there any ones that you 28 1 already have in your mind that are off 2 limits? 3 MS. BALDWIN: We'll clarify that for you too. 4 MR. WILSON: I mean, depending on where this 5 borrow comes in, so forth, and how we have to 6 get it there, depending on what comes from 7 that, there may be a lot of traffic coming in 8 on these roads and there may not be. 9 Obviously, all the aggregates are going to 10 come in. So -- 11 MS. BALDWIN: Yes. 12 MR. WINKLEMAN: Larry Winkleman, Miller 13 Brothers. I just want to clarify from 14 Addendum 1. You added another bid item for 15 the MSE wall. Reference 357, which is the 16 first alternate, is the MSE wall as per plan, 17 and I believe that's the mural, and then 18 you've added reference 802 MSE wall. I'm 19 guessing that's the Asher stone. But I'm 20 still not clear from the addendum what the 21 differentiation is between the two. 22 MS. BALDWIN: There's -- I will clarify that. 23 MR. WILSON: Jim Wilson, E.S. Wagner Company. 24 As it relates to the erosion control items, 25 OCA's in the process of renegotiating 29 1 prices right now with ODOT for the 832 2 specification. 3 Will those new prices be incorporated 4 into this project? 5 MS. BALDWIN: I'll have to check. 6 MR. WILSON: And the reason I ask is because, 7 obviously, this job is starting now and it's 8 going to continue out for a significant 9 period of time. So it would be nice to know 10 if we would be able to take advantage of 11 those revised prices. 12 And, in addition, the snow fence that 13 you were speaking about earlier, will that be 14 paid under the 832 specification? Is there 15 -- 16 MS. BALDWIN: There's a pay item for that. 17 MR. WILSON: Oh. There is an actual bid on 18 it? 19 MS. BALDWIN: There is an actual bid item for 20 that. 21 MR. WILSON: Okay. I didn't see that. 22 MS. BALDWIN: I think it's with the fencing 23 quantities. 24 MR. WILSON: Yes, ma'am. 25 MS. BALDWIN: Okay. Larry. 30 1 MR. GILLEN: Larry Gillen, Miller Brothers. 2 Earlier Larry Winkleman mentioned the Neowash 3 Road closure or work being done prior to any 4 other work. When you decide that, be sure 5 to look at Item No. 10 on that same page, 6 67. It says, embankment work that does not 7 require the closing of any roadway or 8 affect the permitted roadway closure periods 9 may be constructed at any time. 10 MS. BALDWIN: Okay. 11 MR. GILLEN: So we hope that you don't still 12 enforce No. 4 as earlier requested when we 13 want to use No. 10. 14 MS. BALDWIN: Okay. Any more questions? 15 MR. GIESLER: Jeff Giesler, Gerken Paving. 16 Regarding proposal note 420, surface beams, 17 is that going to apply just to the warranty 18 section or not? 19 MS. BALDWIN: I'm not sure. We'll check 20 that. 21 MR. GIESLER: Second question, Page 67, Item 22 615, pavement for maintaining traffic. Will 23 that be as per plan? It's a 448 type 24 intermediate course setup. We're wondering 25 if we can get that changed to a Type 1? 31 1 Your note says, depth of the intermediate 2 course will be 0.8. 3 MS. BALDWIN: Okay. 4 MR. WILSON: Jim Wilson, E.S. Wagner. Back 5 to that noise ordinance that you had spoken 6 about with Waterville Township. There's also 7 a noise ordinance for Lucas County. 8 Are they going to be viewed together or 9 are they going to have to be held separately 10 because in Lucas County, on Page 61, it talks 11 about power operated equipment cannot be 12 operated between 9 p.m. and 7 a.m. 13 MR. GRAMZA: The request will need to come 14 from the contractor to the department and 15 then we'll deal with all the entities at that 16 time. 17 MR. WILSON: Okay. 18 MR. GRAMZA: We'll deal with, you know, 19 whoever we got to get with. The contractors 20 are required to meet all local zoning 21 ordinances and requirements, you know, 22 regardless of what we say in the contract. 23 That's automatically per specifications. 24 MR. WILSON: Okay. 25 MR. WINKLEMAN: Larry Winkleman with Miller 32 1 Brothers. In regards to that then, Mike, for 2 example, deck pours that are at night don't 3 really comply with this. You're saying 4 we would submit a request -- 5 MR. GRAMZA: Submit a request to us and we 6 will ask the locals for that exemption. 7 MR. WINKLEMAN: Okay. 8 MR. GRAMZA: But we can't promise that but we 9 will ask -- 10 MR. WINKLEMAN: You will give us an 11 exemption for that activity? 12 MR. GRAMZA: Correct. 13 MS. BALDWIN: Additional questions? 14 Anything else? This meeting is adjourned. 15 Thank you for joining us. 16 (Proceedings concluded at 9:41 a.m.) 17 - - - 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 33 1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 3 STATE OF OHIO ) 4 ) SS. 5 COUNTY OF LUCAS ) 6 7 I, Karen M. McCall Greene, the undersigned, do 8 hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, 9 correct and complete transcript of the proceedings 10 in the foregoing captioned matter taken by me and 11 transcribed from my stenographic notes. 12 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 13 and affixed my notarial seal of office at Toledo, 14 Ohio, on this _______ day of January, 2009. 15 16 ------------------------------ 17 KAREN M. MCCALL GREENE 18 Notary Public in and for the 19 State of Ohio 20 21 My Commission expires December 10, 2005. 22 23 24 25