Okay. It is 9.02 and we do have a quorum,
so I'll call to order the public utilities board for
the city of Denton on Monday, October 23rd, 2023.
The first item is presentations for members of the public,
and we do have Mr. Don Murky,
who's going to speak on POB 23192 with the contract with Blink.
Is he here? Okay. You have three minutes.
I'm Don Murky. I live at 2005 Hollyhill Denton.
I've lived here since '69.
I've been driving EVs for 10 years next month.
Became aware of this and was looking at the different things in this.
I think there's some emissions and some errors in this proposal.
The 110 voltage that they have on there with
all these different pieces of equipment to do that.
I don't understand the necessity of the 110.
It's not viable really for EVs.
They require a much higher voltage to charge.
240 will work.
I charged a 240 at my house.
It required a 1450 plug,
which is RV-based plug.
I have it at 60 amps protection and charge at 30 amps,
and it charges my vehicles every night.
Cost me less than $100 to put in.
I don't need monitoring with software, anything like that.
It works very well.
In the proposal, I noticed that they don't list what the connectors are,
that they're going to be using on the level 2,
which is the 240 plugs.
Those typically in the old days were CCS,
which is what they list for their level 3,
which are the superchargers,
the 60 and 150 kilowatt ones.
This is already obsolete.
Every manufacturer that's making a car in North America has adopted the NACS Tesla adapter.
It's simpler, it's smaller,
it has no moving parts,
no switches that frequently break.
I tried to run a company here in town using Nissan Leafs,
which required using the CCS charger,
and I tried to use the blink charging system,
and I frequently had issues with their equipment being broken.
I've driven a Tesla for 10 years next month.
I've got four of them.
I have yet to be a Tesla charger that is not functioned.
We have Tesla chargers here.
They could be used.
The level 3 chargers that they're talking about,
those are basically used for people that are going from Denton to Austin,
and we want to charge on the road.
They charge 80 percent usually in 15 to 30 minutes.
Being for a city fleet,
it doesn't really seem practical for the money.
For the amount of money that this is,
we're trying to put on the table close to a million dollars for three years to do this,
it's obsolete when you even start into the gate.
Next year, every car is going to have a different adapter on it.
So this needs to be pulled and it needs to be reevaluated.
This technology is changing,
and I know when this was brought up,
it probably wasn't NACS as the prevalent adapter.
Now it is, and every manufacturer including Toyota just last week adapted that.
So I think there's some errors in this,
and I think we're jumping the gun on this.
I understand we need to do it.
So that's about all I have to say.
Thank you.
All right.
No, there's no one else from the public to speak,
so we'll go into the consent agenda.
Does any board member wish to pull an items A through G?
I know Mr. Rybeck was pulling two.
As soon as he gets his mic on.
Okay. Yes, I would like to pull items E and G.
Okay. Item E and G.
Okay. So do we have a motion to approve items A, B, C, D, F?
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Aye.
Okay. Item E. That is the blink contract.
Madam Chair, board members, Michael Gagne,
Director of Environmental Services and Sustainability.
I do not have a presentation,
but I can answer any questions you have.
The primary focus of this contract is to clarify,
is for our city fleet,
they're not to be made publicly available.
It's to upgrade the existing locations.
We have about five across the city and we have one location we need to add new.
The contract right now, we've estimated roughly 228,000 over the first three years.
It's just what we've projected, depending on the growth of the fleet, what's available.
They have actually in the contract given us the option to change out connectors.
So we have options for all different types of connectors within the proposal.
To address the DC fast charger or the level three.
One of the reasons there is if we start getting into PDs fleet,
we will have to have the ability to charge quickly because those vehicles cannot be parked typically for 12 or 14 hours or even six hours.
They're used to basically 24/7.
So that's the reason that was included.
Level one was included because there is a portion of our fleet that averages about 30 miles a day.
Those actually at level one done correctly can stay at 100% every week on a regular basis without less demand.
So it's just an option in there.
Does it mean we're going to choose it?
I'll leave it there.
Thank you. Miraculously, my microphone is working.
I don't know who fixed that, but thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Fuente.
So, board, just so you know, all the mics are on, so just know that.
Interesting.
Well, thank you very much.
I answered one of my questions.
I think our presenter from the public did a nice job of bringing up some things to consider,
and I'm glad that this has already been undertaken as part of the plan for this.
I'm curious about the total value of this EV installation project.
I'm assuming the software is only a part of it?
Correct.
OK.
So do we know what the overall value of this EV charger installation operation is?
I'm not sure I'm following the question.
This contract is to buy the actual charger itself, kind of like buying an ATM machine as well.
It's the product itself with the charging cord.
And then we have the option to use their software or their connectivity on a monthly basis as well.
So that way our fleet drivers will know if a charging station is available, they can queue in,
get alerted, they can be alerted when their car is actually charged, things like that.
That's the benefit to the software.
So how many chargers are involved in this project?
It's built out each year differently.
The first year, we're looking between five and seven in year one, mainly level two.
Those are different sites we have.
In year two, depending on how availability comes on fleet, was the first year we were looking
at doing a DC fast charger or a level three charger.
That year, we'd probably add in roughly the same five to seven level twos as well,
if the fleet grows enough.
If not, that would get delayed.
And year three is primarily focused on adding an additional level two chargers across the fleet.
Currently, we have six full EVs in our fleet, and we do have a few plug-in hybrids as well.
But we actually only have six currently in our fleet.
OK. But the plan is for that fleet to grow.
And therefore, this is to accommodate that expansion?
Correct. And to back up one piece, one of Council's priority is to look at EV across the city of Denton.
So we're working on a plan to look at how we help out or what we do to assist multifamily.
What do we do in the retail restaurant sector?
How do we do that across all of Denton?
What do we do within our city fleet?
What's our five-year plan for upgrading, changing out?
How do we make that happen?
We're working on that, and that's one of Council priorities.
It's out there on our strategic dashboard as well, if you're interested.
OK. Well, I did not know that.
So I guess that's something I can go look at. Thank you.
So do we know overall what the cost of operation of these EV chargers are up to date?
And then for the future, do we have any projection of what that's going to cost?
Or does DME just provide the power and grant us because it's for the city?
We pay DME for the power like we would pay for it for any other part of operating a building.
So DME does not provide it for free.
I don't have an overall demand on that.
It depends on the size of the fleet and where that stands as far as that cost.
Do we have a cost comparison between the EV and the charging cost and then the cost of operation of a normal vehicle?
What I can say there is typically the payback on an EV can be paid back for the difference in cost,
whether it be fuel cost, maintenance cost, everything else.
It's usually within that three year period, sometimes as high as five, depending on what you're buying.
OK, so after three years, five year period, you've retired the added cost of electric vehicle charging.
Correct. Well, and the upcharge of the vehicle itself, because most EVs are slightly higher priced currently.
They're projected to come down to be almost cost neutral closer to 2030.
Just depends on the growth.
Well, that's great. It's going to get some idea of this.
You came to us and asked for money and I was looking at it, OK, where's the rest of it?
And the reason we're here is, you know, we do have vehicles within solid waste fleet and within DME's fleet.
So we want to make sure that the public utility board is aware of this action.
OK, excellent. My last question has to do with the fact this is third party software that we'll be taking into the city, into its operations.
Actually, no, they'll operate independently.
We will have access to their cloud, so it won't actually integrate within our network system.
It'll be similar to what currently we have some publicly facing chargers that are done through ChargePoint.
ChargePoint manages all that and then provides the data back to us.
They don't actually integrate. OK, so there won't be any of the operator information,
city information, city client information like us, the users of DME.
No, they will not have access to anything on the city side.
We would actually set up with them like any other account within it all.
It would be for our users within the blank system.
Once they get their log in, they'll be able to use that in our system as well as go outside the system.
If we put basically a P card or a mechanism behind it.
So if they go to Austin or if they go to Fort Worth or they go to Dallas, they can charge while they're there as well.
Under one system, like a fuel card does right now for us under the fuel main gas cards.
Well, one of the reasons I asked about this is every data breach that has occurred in our world has been third party software without failure, every one of them.
So I saw this and I said, OK, we're going to have users, we're going to have data, we're going to have client information, we're going to have billing information.
So hence my concern.
This should be fairly simple.
And since it would identify a unit and a user number, which would be unique to those two things,
which would probably be meaningless to anybody in the public if I quoted off some vehicle numbers to y'all.
I don't think y'all would know it probably wouldn't know our employee ID numbers either.
That's really what will be in there.
OK. Well, getting back to our guest's question.
So how many charges do we currently have an operation for the city fleet for the city fleet?
We have six locations.
Most of those are dual port. One is a single port, two or single ports, meaning the plug connections to one has only two sites.
You can connect one vehicle at a time for sites.
You can connect up to two vehicles, dual port, dual outlets, dual whips, dual connections.
I know, Mr. Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead.
No, please. No, no, no. I was just going to follow on this question.
So what about this issue that you brought up about the connectors and the types of plugs and the within the contract?
We have the ability to choose which ones we want to deploy and we have a cost in there to change those out if we ever need to as well.
So they've given us a cost for repair. If one gets broken, cut damage, we have that ability within that.
And they've said they can they can use all every universal port available is what they've told us we can choose from.
OK, so the current half dozen locations that we have, what kinds of plugs are they currently using or do you know?
I don't want to misspeak. They're all the older one. And I don't I don't remember which exact unit number it is.
But we have a multitude of weird ones out there. I'll leave it at that.
OK. Do you know what your newest ones are? OK.
Well, it's it to our guest question then. So are there plans to update them, modernize them, make them more uniform and universal?
That's what's phase one of the year. The first contract. Yes, yes.
Is we're going to go in and change those because those are all some aren't in the best location anymore.
We've done some facility upgrades, different things are not as accessible.
We do have one site with a fleet that doesn't have a charger.
We've done some upgrades over fleet services and that one's not as accessible.
So we'll probably move that out towards more accessible to people going in and out of there as well.
Well, I would like to thank our guests for coming and make presentation.
Those are some things I certainly hadn't thought about or been aware of.
If anybody else has any questions, feel free to dive in.
I know Mr. Reiner had a couple and thank you for your time.
Thank you for giving the same questions that I have.
And I had a couple of others that came up as you talk about those six locations.
Are those exclusive to the city of Denton for our fleet?
Yes, they're only accessible by city of debt and fleet customers.
We do have publicly accessible charge point sites that are generally only open to the public.
So we have those at a couple of libraries, a couple of park sites as well as development services.
So the stations that are on private properties, buckies or wherever, are those accessible to the city as well?
I mean, do you have, when you said you had a charge card, could you go use those as well if needed be?
If you're going to Austin, I would think you would have to use some kind of credit card.
To clarify there, there are certain stations out there that are limited to the model or manufacturer you're driving.
So the Teslas are driven for Teslas.
Yes.
Then we have limited use ones such as embassy suites.
That site has a charger, but it's for their overnight guests.
For their guests get to use that, it's not just for the general public.
Whereas a lot of the ones over by Walmart, Kroger, those things on University or 380, anybody can use them.
And within these networks, once you establish an account, you can basically use everybody else's sites,
except for Tesla or if they're restricted to whether it be residents at the apartment complex or guests or things like that.
And then the additional five to seven, the first year, are they specific?
Seven or five different locations or just additional power towers, I'll call it, in the current locations.
It's actually kind of like we did in this room before you got here.
We're going to refresh the current sites.
We're only going to add one new charging site in year one, which would be development services.
We have two vehicles there that do not have overnight access to a charger.
They're going to other locations currently.
And then one other question, I think.
Presently, we have about six EV vehicles in the fleet, is that correct?
And I did not realize this, but you're saying that the council wants us to expand that, which I can understand.
Do you have a projection on what we're looking at as to what additional?
How large is the fleet going to be next year, let's say, if that's possible?
And what kind of vehicles are we?
How big does it go as far as the vehicles?
Is it just a sedan or does it go up to past pickups, whatever?
And is it a question that I can ask in public?
You can. We're not quite there yet.
We've had some change outs, different things.
We're working closely with fleet services to build that plan.
That's part of that overall council direction.
One piece of that is for us to be looking heavily at a five year cost replacement.
And so how we can look at how we transition the fleet to EV.
Currently on the market, you do have vehicles ranging anywhere from a small sedan up to at least a light duty pickup.
There are some medium duties. They're just not quite there.
There's very limited heavy duty, but our primary focus initially be the light duty fleet,
which would be anything from a sedan up through a pickup truck, just depending on availability.
Again, the supply chain issue has been part of our challenge.
We try to do some orders a year and a half ago.
They haven't processed. We're still trying to do five new orders currently.
And I've been told now those may not go in go in until January.
And if they go in in January, I don't know when they'll deliver.
OK. So when the when the fleet is expanded, is that is that an issue that will be brought before us before it's done?
Or is that already carte blanche done?
I wouldn't say it's carte blanche. That's part of what fleet services works on.
And depending on which purchases are going on and which funds are paying for those pieces of that may come back through.
But again, if it's more general fund driven, those kind of things, it wouldn't come back to this board.
So no. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. All right.
Oh, go ahead. Go ahead. Good morning. How are you doing?
I knew you had to have one. Yeah.
So I think I have two questions in the price evaluation.
The level three charger prices weren't included.
And it seems like that could be a significant cost, like one might be 20 times as expensive as a level two charger.
Funny you use that number. It's about it is about that procurement as we work through that, we've got prices on everything.
The list in there, I'm looking, I don't know, I don't see Laurie in the room.
We cleaned it up to make sure that we had a clear basis to make sure we were comparing apples to apples.
So the primary cost comparison was focused in on the level two, which would be the primary use across the city.
The level threes did come in. My memory on blink as a manufacturer, they were actually lower on the level DC fast chargers level threes.
Now, the challenge there to speak to my predecessor speaking earlier, there's about seven or eight different tiers of DC fast charging out there.
So I'd have to go back and look and each proposal to make sure that specifically they were cheaper on what we're what we tried to compare against within that.
OK, and then I'm following on Commissioner Rybeck's question about cost.
I know personally, I have an E.V. and, you know, two gas powered vehicles and the the cost to run it, the cost to operate and maintain it is like a small fraction.
Ten or 20 percent of the cost of a conventional vehicle.
But I know in a fleet, it's different. So I'd I'd love to see in a year or two just to kind of an update on, you know, what's the difference in fleet cost for maintenance and fueling effectively.
And to add to that, that's one thing fleets really focused on.
Currently, we're trying to put GPS units and all of our fleet to get really accurate information to know the use and demand on those vehicles to be able to do that comparison back.
Thank you. Madam Chair, I'll just ask Devin if you could bring that up at our management when we get to our management section and then we can make sure that there's there's agreement that for us to do that and we can add it to our future agenda items.
OK. All right. Any further questions?
I move approval of agenda item. Thank you. You'd be twenty three one ninety two. Do we have a second second. All in favor say aye.
Carries. Next is twenty three one ninety four contract with S.E.A. Towers Limited for some transmission. And Mr. Ryback pulled that one off. Yes, I'm the guilty party.
More code, it's an already engineering answer. Any questions regarding still poles?
Yes, sir. Thank you for joining us this morning. I appreciate it. I don't really have any problem with the purchase of this equipment, but it brought some questions to mind.
Sure. Which are this is obviously part of a larger effort to put in this new service line. So I was curious if we at this time know the total project value.
And my other question is, so what's driving this upgrade to this particular service line?
Well, as far as value, we have the cost. I'm not sure if that's what you're asking for. The total cost of the project. The total cost will be around five point six million dollars for this contract.
For this contract, for just the material. Yes, sir. Just the material. That part I see. I'm asking no, sir. I do not know. I do not have that. OK, I can look into it and get back with you.
I would appreciate that. That's kind of my question. I understand we're buying all this hardware to make this project possible to increase the size of the service line. I get that.
So something's driving that and that total cost of the project. There must be some number out there. And I'd just like to know what it is.
I think Jerry. Mark Zimmer is going to come up here and give you a response to that. Thank you.
Yes, sir. Mark Zimmer, DME Engineering. Total project cost for this is about 14 million. About 14 million. And what is driving the upgrade to this service line?
Our studies have shown that this line is overloaded. It's currently overloaded. By the year 2025.
Could you tell us what area it currently serves? Well, it's part of the transmission system, so it generally serves a large area.
I couldn't pinpoint an exact area, but it generally serves the industrial side of town. So the west side of 35.
OK, so Peterbilt, Touchback, all those customers on the west. All right.
And the good news, Mr. Rebecca and for the board, this is part of our transmission cost of service.
So we do earn a rate of return on that as well. So we'll be seeing a large portion of that project will be basically reimbursed back to DME over the course of a number of years.
As part of that uplift program that it's done through the ERCOT grid. Well, thank you. Appreciate that.
OK, so got a rough total value of the project. Know where it's going. And those are my questions. Thank you very much.
Do we have other questions? OK, seeing none, do we have a motion to approve? So moved.
Moved. Do we have a second? Mr. Rayner, second. All in favor say aye. Aye. That carries. Next is approval of the October 9th, 2023 minute meeting.
Meeting minutes. Did anybody see any changes or corrections?
Seeing none, do we have a motion to approve the minutes? So moved. Mr. Rayner. I'll take second. OK, Mr. Black moved in. Mr. Rayner takes second.
All in favor say aye. Aye. Next is item PUB 23135, General Capital Program Expenditures for Bonds. Certificates.
See if I can get this out of my eyesight a little bit there. Good morning. Randy Klingle, Treasury Manager with the Finance Department.
I have a short presentation today, maybe. There it goes for me. Ma'am, could you speak more into the microphone? Thank you.
How's this? This better? Better. OK. Much. I'm a little height challenged here, but I'll make it work.
I have an annual reimbursement ordinance that we bring to you every year before we start the bond process.
And the reason for the reimbursement ordinance is because it's required by the IRS.
It shows that our intent that we're going to reimburse ourselves later with bond proceeds that come through the bond sale later this summer.
Normally we do the bond sale 12 months after this ordinance is executed. We do like to finish it by the end of the fiscal year.
So we will have this done by by September always so we can receive the proceeds of the same fiscal year that we have this reimbursement ordinance.
And our debt policy that governs our debt and our bond sale items do include the opportunity to have this ordinance.
So today we are only covering the utility project items for this board to oversee, and I will not be going through the project items.
They are exactly the same as you saw September 26 go through council.
So nothing has changed there, but we will be just covering the utilities.
So the first utility we have for today is solid waste, which their capital improvement plan project budget for this fiscal year is just a little bit over seven million dollars.
And in your back up, you have a couple of little narrative sentences about each fund program that kind of gives you an overall narrative of what these projects will do for them this fiscal year.
But you also have this presentation, which will give you the line item detail water project for the this fiscal year is eighty two point seven million dollars for their fund for the projects for this year.
Wastewater's budget is fifty five point nine million dollars.
And last, we have the electric fund with eighty two point five million dollars for their capital improvement, but budget for the reimbursement ordinance.
So in summary, for just the utilities, solid waste water, wastewater, electric, we have two hundred and twenty eight million three hundred and forty one thousand one hundred and fifty seven dollars in their capital improvement plan budget.
So our next steps, I'll come back to you guys in April for the notice of intent, which I'll bring the same list to you, possibly reduced depending on how things go as they look at their project timelines or cost and what their availability of projects are.
And then in May, we'll come back with the bond parameter ordinance, which will be our our final push with our final numbers on this list, and they will have a projected sell in June.
And then we'll receive our proceeds in July, and that's kind of the annual process that we have for this. And we kind of maintain that same timeline year over year.
Yes, wrong way. There we go. Any questions? Yes, ma'am. So this is a bond obligation or bond sale for this year to cover the next two fiscal years.
Well, we will get the proceeds this year and then they will allocate them and use them as it comes up and necessary for their contracts with the future.
OK, so this is for this year. Do we do this essentially every year?
Essentially every year. Yes, we have a lot of capital projects. So we do do this becomes an annual annual annual chunks, if you will.
Yes. OK, thank you. And this isn't actually the bond sale.
It's just authorizing us to go ahead and go ahead and do the reimbursement right and then reimburse ourselves when we get the proceeds.
Just want to clear that up. Yes, ma'am. Other questions? Do we have a motion to approve this item?
So, Mr. Do we have a second second and seconds? All in favor say aye. Aye. Next item is P.B. twenty three one eighty three wholesale transmission charges.
Where'd it go? That's what he's thinking.
You're just trying to make us feel good. Yeah, I don't see my presentation.
In my packet, it's called presentation dash five, if that helps you.
You may want to go to the Web site and just pull it off of there. OK, yeah, that might be quicker.
Apologize. No, no problem.
Need some help is yes, sir. Is it over here?
All right. Yes. Good morning, Madam Chairman and board member of P.B.
I'm here today to discuss transmission cost of service expense.
These are routine expenses that the electric fund incurs every single year, basically.
We're bringing this to the board for transparency purposes, and these expenses has already been approved in the budget.
So this slide right here just represents some of the external vendors that will be paying or external providers that will be paying.
And this is going to come around about seven point one million dollars.
So this is the cost that the city will pay for using other providers transmission assets pretty much.
And this next slide is just we're just listing some of the other providers that will be using that is basically under the fifty thousand dollars just for transparency purposes.
Any questions or comments? Go ahead.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So I have I have a general understanding of transmission cost of service.
We and this is just a kind of required payment within our code.
Everybody pays to use the shared grid that moves power from the various generators to the various consumers.
But I'd like to just understand a little bit more about these the individual transactions here are.
I've always seen transmission cost of service just kind of summed up as kind of a fee based on four CP peak.
Is that then just allocated out based on some other factor and every load serving entity in ERCOT pays the same kind of fractions out to the various vendors?
Or are these like individual kind of bilateral transactions for the different vendors?
Kind of a technical question, but I'm just trying to understand how this works in a little more detail.
Yes. So let me summarize. So basically all these all these service providers.
This is a dollar amount that is calculated, like you said, from the four CPs.
And then basically this is our cost to using basically their transmission assets.
And this is for the new fiscal year that's coming up.
So I hope that answer your questions or maybe Tony can help.
It looks like yes. So so you're exactly right.
It's based on your load ratio share. Right.
Both in how you charge other providers and in how you pay other providers as well.
So it's all distributed based on that four CP is calculated every year, June, July, August and September.
It's kind of it's the average of that. And so that applies to every utility out there.
And so there's some utilities where we net out.
And so we ended up having to pay because because we owe them more that they owe us or or they owe us more than than we owe them.
And so so that's how that's done across across all the TSP's transmission service providers in the state.
That was my other question. These are already netted of our transmission.
Yes. And going back to that transmission ROI from that transmission project that was being discussed earlier,
that transmission ROI would would lower these net outs in the future in future years.
Yes, correct. And so a high level currently we pay out in a single fiscal year about twenty five, twenty eight million dollars total.
This is only a portion of that. There'll be others that will come to you.
What we've been earning prior to our latest TCO case was over 60 million dollars just for comparison purposes.
As you know, we recently had a filing. There was a final order.
We anticipate that that revenue that we get is going to come down to about 30 million dollars a year.
So we're still we're still getting a little bit more than what we're paying out.
Not quite the calculation, right. But but just for comparison purposes.
So you have all the information. Thank you for that question.
Oh, go ahead, sir. You're closer. You go. Oh, you're too kind.
Could you go back a slide or two? I was just curious. Another one.
The first one. No, go back to go back where you were.
Yes. Yes. It's just like I'm at my house and they don't.
It's OK. It works. So all of these description, is this what we're paying or is this what they're paying?
Is this where we're getting additional? So what is that?
So basically, these are the dollar amounts that the city is paying out.
So this is our cost for using transmission assets from other providers.
And these are all. Now, is this a is this generally the same characters that we use?
Pardon the pun throughout the history of it? Yes, exactly.
And so if I understand then, Madam Chair, this was approved by the budget. Yes.
So the city council's already approved this. So is this just more or less this is what we're doing and hope you like it?
Because there's not really any changes we're making, is it? Just for transparency. Exactly.
Thank you. Transparency important. Transparency purpose. Thank you for your time.
My question is, you mentioned these ratios that we pay out on.
Where do those come from? Are those from the PUCT or?
Yeah. So so they're calculated based on what's called the four CP of the four coincident peaks.
It's the highest use in June, July, August and September.
That's average. And that that load share is what's what all these are based off of for everybody in the ERCOT market.
Thank you. All right.
Further questions. Do we have a motion to approve? So move seconded.
All in favor say aye. Aye.
OK. Next item is PUB one ninety five. Consider a contract with Felix Felix Construction Company for the ropes and ranch water reclamation plant lift station.
Oh, excuse me. Good morning. How are y'all?
My name is David Brown. I'm water utilities project manager.
Today, I'm going to bring to you ropes and ranch plant lift station improvement.
This is a phase one of the improvements out there.
As you know, ropes and ranch community south on 35 going towards Fort Worth.
So 20 years ago, they actually installed a wastewater plant out there that actually treats water on site, the wastewater.
And so they have a permit out there. And this was put in in play about 20 years ago.
They have permit out there of close to one M.G.D. per day. And right now they have reached 90 percent of that T.C.Q. permitted flows.
So T.C.Q. has a rule 75 90 rule at 75 percent of the permitted flows.
You're being designed and at 90 percent, we're being construction.
So with this, this plan of action is to convert the existing east lift station over to convert it over to it's going to be a lift station,
but it's going to pump into directly into connection that capital projects delivered that actually go into our Pecan Creek water reclamation plant.
So we're utilizing a new gravity and a force made that's been recently put in.
We're going to connect that over. What this does is it relieves 40 percent of those flows.
We're going to take 40 percent of those flows and put it into our regular treatment over at Pecan Creek.
Like I said, the east lift station pumps will be upgraded and also the piping will be upgraded.
What this does is twofold. It splits the flows up basically east and west.
On the west side, it'll go over to the plant like we do now.
There'll be a little bit of improvements on the SBR plant with disinfection.
At the same time, we'll split our flows and go east, we'll go over to our Pecan Creek.
So that'll increase the capacity over there at ropes and at this time.
And like I said, this is phase one. There are other opportunities. We'll go into phase two.
There's other opportunities which may be upgrading the plant or making a lift station connected to a gravity.
Of course, we want to try to get away from lift stations and plants. We want to go to gravity on that.
So with that, we have a contract.
We'd like to have approved for contract with Felix Construction at two point nine million dollars, three hundred ten days for construction.
Like I said, this is phase one and ropes and has we entered an agreement with ropes in the 2019 to help fund this.
So a lot of the funding is coming from ropes and community be glad to answer any questions.
Yes. So the current water treatment plant on the west side of the community that was built by the community.
Yes, sir. It's owned, owned, operated by the city.
That's all it is. So it is a city. We do have an operator over there. The city operates it, but ropes and community built it.
Yes. OK. So the city operates it.
So the city, in order to meet these T.E.C.Q. requirements is going to put this project, take a large percentage of the effluent flow and move it over towards the new Concrete treatment facility.
Well, it's not the new. It's our existing concrete so upgraded.
I apologize. What they the CIP group delivered a project as far as a force main to this lift station and then gravity along ropes and when under thirty five and connects over to the country lakes addition.
And then, of course, that actually leads into our concrete plant over there off of Mayhill.
Yes, sir. OK. Makes perfectly good sense. Thank you.
So I have a question. Thank you.
Obviously, we realize there's so much growth out there and more houses coming and such.
I was curious with that last comment you made as that gravity fed goes underneath thirty five and is connected to that other large subdivision.
Is this line going to be potentially being connected with other are you planning on having being connected with other subdivision developments going on or will they be parallel?
When you said phase one, do you see another potential lift station or such on that side of the west of thirty five for covering all of these?
The thought process with the initial project was to make that plant into a lift station, which can be converted.
The plant right now actually treats wastewater, just doesn't pump it, treats and discharges into a creek.
The plan is is to be able to make that a lift station because you already have the capacity, their lift station and float and actually pump reverse flow to this lift station that we're going to convert right now and and basically pump it into our conventional system that we have now.
And it's a boy. Sorry. Avoid running a plant out there at Robson.
So it is you have and I'm thinking phase two, phase three and such that will just be further expansion of that plan to take care of the additional demands that will be coming on that side.
Yes, sir. Right now, this is kind of this is a alleviate and helps right now to be able to split that flow so you can have more capacity on that west side.
And then it gives us some time in order to plan. If a developer comes in and puts in a gravity line on that north side of that plant, you know, a hundred coal addition can put a gravity line and then we can tie into that.
So and with that effect, the capacity where we would need to come back to do another seventy ninety that you were talking about, not that we know of.
It's been studied that not we know of that gravity line will alleviate a lot of that course. There's plans for another plant.
So we have, you know, that that wastewater mass plant spells out a lot of that to take care of those that growth on that west side of thirty five.
Thank you for your time. Thank you, Madam Chair. The question. Go ahead.
Well, I have another question for me. It's curiosity. It's outside the scope of this project. I recognize. But we have those two new Hunter and coal ranch developments going in basically between ropes and ranch and the thirty five W.
So are they also going to tie into this new east connector that you're building?
Not that we know of there. They're as far as I know, they're going to build their own interceptors on that side.
And they're also going to flow to Pecan Creek as of now, as of now.
OK, thank you. Oh, I don't want to think the master plan for the wastewater can test somewhere.
We can see that on the city website. I don't know if it's all been if it's been we haven't approved it yet.
It's under review. The wastewater plants will see that coming to us coming to us at a future date soon.
Thank you very much. All right.
Other questions. Or do we have a motion to approve?
So moved. Thank you, Mr. Pluck.
And do we have a second, Mr. Rybeck?
I'm going to abstain from voting since I'm employed by ropes and ranch HOA.
So. All in favor, I'm abstaining.
Thank you. Last item is management reports.
Madam Chair, members of the board, a couple of few items that we have for you.
One, we had a response to a question Mr. Rybeck had asked regarding the Spencer generation station.
And what I'll say about this is that just remember that the Spencer generation station,
even though it's next door to DME's campus, is not owned owned by DME nor the city of Denton,
actually owned by Garland Power and Light.
But we did provide some information back to Mr. Rybeck, hopefully, to answer your question.
If not, I'm happy to answer anything else you may have on that.
No, I thank you. I did read this prior to coming to the meeting.
So thank you very much. Appreciate it.
It was just curiosity. Obviously, it used to be our asset.
It's right next to our op center.
See, we have this big resource here and it's obviously in close proximity to our transmission system.
So it seemed like something would be good to know about. So thank you.
And feature agenda items. So December 11th, we have on schedule the Wastewater Master Plan
that will be coming to you by that department. They're still working on that.
And we'll begin that over to you and certainly be a work session with you.
And then new business action items.
The one item that we had was a request from Mr. Rybeck on the Spencer station.
So we've provided a response to that. Happy to answer any other questions or if there's any other requests.
I would like to make a request, as I stated earlier, regarding what information the fleet fleet has on
EV operation versus conventional ICE vehicles.
And I understand that it might take a while to gather data.
So if this is appropriate in six months or a year, that's fine.
I just wanted to just kind of begin to get an understanding for fleet at the fleet level, what the cost difference is.
Yeah, well, we'll get it added. And I'll talk to Tom Gremer, who's the director of fleet operations and make him aware of it.
Thank you. I do have a question for a future agenda, which is my third party software question.
It really occurred to me that we've talked a lot about various and sundry software systems and automated billing and things of that nature.
So I'd like to know what steps the city is taking to protect our information from data breach from via third party software vendors.
Yeah, let me let me visit with our technology department about that.
Also, our legal department to make sure that that's something that can come to the border and how how it would come to the board.
But certainly, I'll get back to you in response to that.
Thank you. And again, this blink system and then the software and I got to thinking about all the third party software breaches that our data has suffered.
So I would be curious to know what steps the city is taking since we're obviously in the business of adding more vendor software to our universal systems.
Yeah, certainly a high priority item for us as a matter of fact, that tomorrow several of us are attending a cybersecurity training down in Rowlett.
So it is something that is high on everybody's mind as we deal with a multitude of data and information.
So. And we're on to concluding items.
Does any board member wish to say anything to the public or have something put on a future agenda?
OK, seeing none, do we have a motion to adjourn?
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Taylor. We're adjourned.