Jun 24, 2019 Public Utilities Board on 2019-06-24 6:00 PM

>> Okay, it's 6 o'clock. Let's call the order. We do have a quorum. Let's call the order of the Public Utilities Board of June 24th, 2019. We have a somewhat light agenda today, so we'll start with the consent agenda. Do any board members wish to pull an item from the agenda? >> Item B, please. >> Okay, and I would like to pull item E. So do we have a motion then to approve A, C, D, F, and G? >> So moved. >> And a second? >> Second. >> All in favor say aye. >> Aye. >> Okay, then item B. >> Well, I have a few questions about, well just the way it was presented in the agenda information sheet about the failed concrete recycling program, which indeed it was, and then also by processing this, we're going to save some money. And it seemed to me that we closed the rubble processing really because of mismanagement. I think in December, maybe we learned that maybe 60% of the materials and potential revenues were kind of just lost and that we closed it at a $5.3 million loss. And these are just things I'm picking from past meetings and the newspaper and things like that. And then I looked that we're going to spend $900,000 over three years, of course, to process 80,000 tons of this rubble. And I was just curious, how much money would we have made just by accepting 80,000 tons of rubble into the landfill? >> That's a really good question and I would have to go back and calculate that. But again, this is highly contaminated. We are charging a much higher rate now than we would have back at that point in time. So we still had to process the material, so again, from a cost-benefit standpoint, we're still doing what needs to be done. The concrete is in the area where our next cell is planning, it is where we're going to put the next cell. So we have to do something within the next three years, because that's where the hole's going to be dug. So that's one reason why we're having to come to you today with this. >> Right, right, are they spreading it as well? >> Pardon? >> Are they spreading it as well? Are they just processing it and leaving it- >> Very near where they've processed it? >> They're going to process it and move the material to an area that we have delegated or designated for them to use and then over the next however long it takes us to use the piles up, we will be able to use that material on site. >> So do you have any kind of idea how long it's going to take to use that material? >> It could take us, I mean, depending on how wet it is, where we're building roads, after having to build temporary roads, it could take four, five, six, seven years or more. >> Okay, so really the way this should be, the way I understand it just from what you said is this is, we're still kind of bleeding on this project and we don't really know if we're saving any money or not, because you don't even really know how long this material is going to last. >> Well, we've stopped the bleeding in that we're not taking any more concrete from outside sources. So again, what we're having to do is manage the pile that's on site. We've had to do that anyway and it has to be done within the next four years when we start digging the hole for the next cell. >> But in the past we would have done it in kind of a business model where we're recycling a product and reselling it to somebody. So it's a little bit different. >> It's a little bit different, but again, when you look at the sales from past, there were very few sales out there and again, you've got other companies out there that are selling aggregate and stone at a much less cost than what this would be. So again, on the open market, again, this would have been the highest cost product out there. >> Do you have any idea about how many cubic feet of space we're going to be able to reclaim by removing it, by processing it? I mean, that's what we're talking about, cell space, cubic yards, right, something like that? >> Well, we are and right now, I mean, it's a very, very big pile that's out there right now, but we're probably saving, probably, I hate to even start to guess. I would have to go back and measure it, but if I was betting or estimating on this, I think it's what, 80,000 yards is what we had said. We take about, I have to go back and do the math on that. >> There's about a ton and a half of like regular size pea gravel or something in a cubic yard. >> Right. >> But, I mean, isn't that, forgive the way this sounds, but isn't that our business to know the space in our landfill? >> It is. >> It seems like we should know it really well. >> It is. >> Somebody should be able to say, yeah, we know exactly how the volume of this pile, and it's going to be from these chunks to this size, and we know what's going on here, because now we're talking about spending $300,000 a year, $10,000. They're only going to be there for 30 days in a year. That's $10,000 a day, and I understand that we have to do this, but it's very frustrating to me, because it seems like it's being presented like, oh, this is a great deal for us by spending this 900 grand, but really, you can't really, you've said you can't really tell me what it's doing for us. You can't tell me how much space we're going to reclaim, and that is the asset in the landfill, the space. >> Well, we have not lost any space. >> Real quick. >> Yes. >> So if we -- >> I'm just frustrated, that's all, because this rubble stuff just keeps coming back up, and this is more -- we could buy fresh gravel for this price. >> You're absolutely -- >> We could buy brand new gravel off the market for this price. >> You're absolutely correct. So kind of circling back to the presentation that Brian alluded to back in December, the airspace loss, if we do nothing, is about $3.3 million worth of airspace. And so what's being contemplated here is processing that stockpile that's currently there, trying to make something usable out of it. So this is a three-year agreement. There's going to be two additional years tacked onto this, and I think the total spend is going to be about $1.5 million to basically burrow through and process this over a five-year period. That's how much stockpile we have on there. So you're absolutely correct. It probably would be more economical for us to go out and purchase the gravel or the millings that we need for our operation. However, we'd be losing that airspace if we took that approach. So this is probably kind of making the best of a bad situation, if you will. >> Okay. >> Does that answer your question? >> Did you say $3.3 million is the value of the airspace? >> $3.3 million, yes, if we were to just bury it and not process it. >> Okay. >> I have one more question about the big bed tabulation sheet. And it says -- Kenny, do you have it in front of you? >> I do not. >> Okay. Well, you know, it lists the three. different companies that bid. And then it says estimated annual quantity, 40,000 tons. But then it says it's going to last for three years. Well, that's 120,000 tons. And it says that we're going to process 80,000 tons. And then -- so that's confusing to me because that's a whole third difference. And then in the bid -- in the monies, the only one that has the years multiplied out is the big city-crush concrete. And I wonder if we did that or if they had the opportunity to know that we were going to actually process 80,000 to 120,000 tons instead of 40,000. Because we might have gotten a better price. >> All the companies that bid attended a pre-bid meeting and all these questions were answered and they did know that. >> Okay. Thank you. I move approval. >> Do we have a second? >> Second. >> All in favor say aye. >> Aye. >> Okay. Item E, I was just confused. I couldn't get all the dates figured out in my head. >> Sure. >> So we missed a date, I take it. >> That is correct. I'm Frank Pugsley, Water Utilities Director. We have a couple of quick slides up here, just background on this issue. As you all are aware, we approved updated impact fees earlier this year by ordinance. And we also have a wholesale wastewater treatment agreement with the City of Crum from 2002. In that agreement, we're required to provide them the assumptions, capital improvement plan and impact fee plan at least 30 days prior to any public hearing. That was not done. After the impact fees were approved, a letter was sent to Crum informing them of the updated impact fees and prior to that, they had no knowledge of the change and they were going along in their planning process with a developer to plot some home sites and they had communicated to that developer the old impact fee. And since we didn't meet our contract obligations, we're requesting to basically post date the impact fee effective date for the City of Crum. And after that date, then all the new plots will be subject to the new impact fee. But it's this one subset of plots that they're most concerned with so they can continue on with that development. >> Okay. All right. That's all I really needed to know. >> Okay. >> It makes sense. It seems like it's a good compromise for a mistake. >> Yeah. We made a mistake and we're trying to be good neighbors. >> Yeah. Okay. I will move approval. >> Second. >> All in favor say aye. >> Aye. >> Aye. >> All right. The next item is consider approval of the public utility board's minutes of June 10th, 2019. I did see that Krista's name was not spelled correctly in the first sentence or two. So with that change, are there any other changes that anyone's noted? So with that change, those stand as approved? With that change, it's approved. Okay. ACM update. >> How quickly can we go? >> Well, I already lost. >> Well, in your packet, you'll see the quarterly financial report ending at the end of March. If you have any specific questions, David Gaines, finance director is here to answer those. Again, as far as your upcoming future agenda items for in your packet again, we've got a number of budget items coming forward to you all over the next few weeks throughout the summer. And with that, I'll answer any questions that you may have. However, if you have any questions of Mr. Gaines, he's here to answer those questions as well. >> I think I need some digesting time on the financial thing. We might come back to that later. >> Sure. >> It's kind of dense. >> Would you like for us to bring it back in the next meeting? >> Do you want a financial presentation or you just want to be able to ask questions? >> I just want to be able to ask questions. >> Okay. >> So we can just leave it as an ACM update? >> Yeah, yeah. >> Okay, we can do that. >> I was trying to figure out the recycling numbers, the ton and the income and the expense. >> Okay. >> It doesn't make any sense up here, so. >> And I was looking at the water revenues, I'm assuming the rather wet year is impacting the-- >> It is. >> Yeah, the lack of me paying you a big bill is-- >> Yeah, and it's problematic across the region for-- >> Yeah, yeah, it is, okay. All right. So concluding items then, is there any items that a board member wishes to have on? A future agenda. >> I have a couple of items. One thing is more of the-- just talk about something that happened like I read about the ballet collection services that the city council approved for some areas over on industrial and I don't think that ever came before us and I like it when that stuff, you know, has an opportunity to come before us just because I like to hear about it, you know. And so that was just one thing and then we were getting-- we got one didn't energy center report and then we haven't gotten anymore and there's actually been two quarters that have passed and I wondered if maybe we could pick back on that. It might be just because George's move, you know, we had some leadership changes so it's possible that that happens. I just like to do that again. And then one more item. So, I see on Facebook and this app, you know, next door or something like that, I think it's called right, I see the recycling coordinator, her name is Misty Adams, the residential recycling education coordinator. She posts things all the time and a lot of them are pretty cool and I just thought it might be nice if she could come here maybe and show us what her, you know, like what she's going to do in the future, maybe a work session kind of situation where she could just show us what she's going to do and that way we'll feel like we're in the know even if we miss something in this environment, you know. That's all I've got. >> Any other board members? Okay. So, do we have a motion to adjourn? >> I move we adjourn. >> Brenda moves the adjournment. Second? >> Second. >> All in favor, aye? >> Aye. >> All right. >> 614, didn't set a record this time.