Staff presented bid results for Sunbury City's 2025 streets program and said Decker Construction was the apparent low bidder for the base bid and all combinations of alternates. Staff recommended awarding the base bid plus Alternate 2 (South Vernon Street), the police parking lot (Alternate 3) and an asphalt rejuvenation alternate (Alternate 5) and asked services to communicate that recommendation to council for amendment of the ordinance price.

The recommendation matters because staff said the base bid plus the recommended alternates would change the amount included in the ordinance drafted by legal. Staff cited two cost figures during the presentation: a yellow-highlighted recommended total of $1,890,000 for the base bid plus Alternates 2, 3 and 5 (with a recommended contingency) and an adjusted matrix total of $1,983,000 that staff asked be reflected in council materials. "If we were awarded, they could start as early as late June," Staff member said about the apparent low bidder. Staff also said Decker has capacity to put a schedule together quickly if the award is confirmed.

Nut graf: The committee heard detailed explanations of five alternates and pavement-preservation technology (asphalt rejuvenator). Staff characterized the rejuvenator as a lower-cost, shorter-impact treatment that can extend pavement life and recommended it as part of a preservation strategy; committee members voiced support to pass the recommendation to council so work could begin quickly if council agrees.

Decker, Kemcoach and Strawser were the three bidders shown in the packet. Staff said the base bid covers most streets and the Columbus Street parking lot; storm catch basin repairs previously deferred were included in the base this year. Staff described Alternate 1 (Arbor Drive) as a marginal candidate with a PACER rating of 4 and recommended deferring it. Alternate 4 (West Sedgwick) is a gravel cemetery road whose bid came in well above the engineer's estimate because of uncertain soil conditions; staff recommended leaving it gravel and performing preventative maintenance in-house.

On rejuvenation, staff explained the product (presented under the trade names cited during the presentation) as a liquid surface treatment with a light sand broadcast that seals and replenishes oils in asphalt. Staff said typical benefits include a visible short-term coating, limited traffic restrictions (45 minutes to an hour before normal traffic), and a sweep of residual sand within one to three days. "It's like putting lotion on top of the road," Staff member said. Staff cited cost comparisons prepared for the committee: the rejuvenator can add roughly five years to pavement life in some cases and can be a low-cost complement to mill-and-fill programs; one presenter'supplied example estimated that one mile of mill-and-fill equates cost-wise to applying rejuvenator on about 12 lane miles.

Discussion points included how the rejuvenator affects pavement striping (it can dull paint for a few weeks), which streets are appropriate candidates (best on relatively newer streets with minimal cracking), and whether it is worthwhile on low-traffic versus high-traffic streets. Committee members emphasized the idea of pavement preservation as a data-driven tool and asked staff to include the rejuvenator in a future pavement-management cost-benefit analysis.

Staff asked services to tell council that the staff recommendation is to add Alternates 2, 3 and 5 to the base award and to amend the ordinance to reflect the adjusted total shown in staff materials. Committee members verbally seconded and stated their support during the discussion but the transcript does not record a formal roll-call vote by the committee on that recommendation.

Ending: Staff said legal drafted the council ordinance with only the base bid amount and that an amendment would be needed if council approves the larger package. Staff also noted typical construction contingencies and recommended a small contingency line in the award. The item was scheduled for first reading at council that evening.