Oct 14, 2024 Public Utilities Board on 2024-10-14 9:00 AM

- Good morning and welcome to the Public Utility Board meeting of October 14th, 2024. I'd like to call this meeting to order. Are there any presentations from members of the public? Any no comments online? Okay. Well, then we'll move on to the consent agenda. Mr. Rayner. - Mr. Chairman, I ask that we pull item B as in boy. - Okay. Any other items? I know I'm going to pull item F because we'll pull that and go into closed session with that item. Are there any other items to be pulled? - Which items have been? - B and F as in Frank and Boyd. - I have a question about item A. - Item A? Okay. If there are no other requests for consideration, I will move. We approve C, D, E, and G. - Second. - We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say aye. - Aye. - Any opposed? Signed the same. All right. Now, I'm going to go ahead and walk out for item B and let Mr. Taylor. - Oh, we did A, I'm sorry. Yes. Okay. Hey, item A. - Good morning, PB, Mark Zimmer, DME Engineering. - Morning. - Morning. - Good morning. I was wondering if you could just give us a little background about this insulated substation. - Sure. The past history on the project, is that what you're referring to? - I'm sorry? - The past history of the project and why we're doing it? - Sure. Yeah. There's an existing Hickory substation around that location now that was built in the '60s. It's reached its end of life. And so, we did public open houses for comments from the public on where to put a new substation. We brought all that feedback back to city council many years ago and they directed us to purchase the site we're on now for the new site. The site is much smaller than a typical substation site. And so, council directed us to use gas insulated substation technology so we can fit all the equipment on the site. And so, now we are a couple of months away from energizing that project and it's almost done. - Thank you. - Yes, sir. - Yeah, this is the one that's got the big faux building, it looks like a building now. - Okay. - Oh, okay. I was gonna ask the address. - As you're bumping down Bonnie Bray, you can view it. - So, this is an additional expense from the original plan for the project? - Yes, sir. One of the items in there is for security design which was not in the scope of the contract, so that's the reason for that part of the change order. Another one is for redesign of some underground utilities due to not having a straight right away. - Thank you. - Yes, sir. - I move to approve item A. - We have a motion to approve. - Second. - We have a second from Mr. Newquist. All those in favor, please say aye. - Aye. - Any opposed, sign the same. - Thank you. - Okay, I'm gonna walk out of the room for item B that has been pulled. - Good morning. - Good morning. - We have an adoption of an ordinance at City of Denton to authorize the city manager to execute a contract with Jago Public Company for the Morse Street Reconstruction Improvements Project for a total of $2,518,025.48. - So, I may ask, what is the timeframe? Was that put in for as to your perception of how long it's gonna take to do something like what you're asking us to have taken care of? - Aaron Skinner, Senior Project Manager, Capital Projects. I believe it is a 300-day contract, but I would have to go look at the contract itself. - You said 300 days? - Yes, sir. - Great. And also, is this a, this particular reconstruction improvement, is this a total turnkey or is there potential additional requests? Is this going in stages or is this just gonna be one item and it'll be finished? - It should be one item all together with the street, sidewalk, and water utilities. - Street, sidewalk, and? - Water utilities. - Within the 300 days? - Yes, sir. - And do you know when that might start? - It just depends on the contract, when we should notice proceed, when it gets approved by council, but I would expect within the next few months. - Great. Thank you for your time. Thank you, sir. I'll make a motion that we approve B as written. - Thank you. - Mr. Ryback seconds. All in favor? - Aye. - Aye. - All right, now we will let our chair return. - We'll let you know. - We're good? - Yep. - Okay. Move on to, I guess we're going to item F at this point. Okay, we're going to, you want to go ahead and call it now, is that right? All right. We're going to go into closed session. Public utility board will now at 9.06 AM convene in closed meeting to deliberate the closed meeting item set forth on the agenda, which include the following, PUB 24-218, deliberations regarding certain public power utilities, competitive matters under Texas government code section 551.086, consultation with attorneys under Texas government code section 551.071. Okay. The public utility board has now at 9.29 AM reconvened from the closed session and no official action was taken. - Order the court. All right. Yeah, okay. And now would anybody like to make a motion on item F? - Move approval of item F from the consent agenda. - Move a motion, do we have a second? - Second. - We have a second from Mr. Plotk. Any further discussion? Seeing as there is none, all those in favor, please say aye. - Aye. - Any opposed, sign the same. Passes unanimously. Okay, now we'll move on to items for individual consideration. First item is A, consider approval of the September 23rd, 2024 meeting minutes. Do we have a motion, do we have a second? - Second. - All right, we have a motion or a second. All those in favor, please say aye. - Aye. - All right, we'll move on, that passes unanimously. Item B, PUB 24-220. We have a little presentation here. All right. - Good morning, members of PUB. This is Pepentavon, ADF Finance, and I'm here to present transmission cost of service. So these costs represent the cost that the City of Denton pays for using other providers' transmission lines or asset or fixed asset of things of that nature. So under our current policy, anything that's over 50,000 needs to go to PUB and City Council for approvals. And these costs are calculated using the 4CP, which is basically the peak demand times that's kind of managed and kind of done through ERCOT and the PUCT. So I think it uses June, July, August, and September as the peak demand timeframes. And these providers here are around the same providers every year that we pay. And this is on the net billing. So this slide here is just to show and present all the providers that we pay that are under 50,000. Staff has the authority to make those payments under our current policy. So that's the left section of the PowerPoint. And the right is the same information on the first slide. That's just the total of the providers that we pay that's over 50,000. And that is it. Does anybody have any questions? Mr. Wrabeck has a question. Just quickly. So these transmission costs that we pay in order to have the availability of power delivery, what percentage of DME's overall cost structure do they represent annually? Tony will handle that one. Okay. Yeah, so it's about 15%. I mean, you're talking about about $30 million of expenses that we have and roughly $400 million budget, so operating budget. Thank you. Yes, sir. Mr. Taylor. And these are netted out against Denton Municipal Electric's own credits for transmission cost of service, right? Correct. Yes. And what is the approval for this coming FY? Correct. Yes. This come, well, FY24-25 budget year is correct. Right. And there will, does ERCOT do one adjustment in the year? Is it going to be one more time where we get an adjustment? Is that standard? So the 4CP is on those June, July, August, and September. And normally those rates and those, or that usage actually won't come out till the end of this. Well, it just came out in December-ish. So then, or this coming up December, but then we'll need to look at the calculation again just to see if there's any variance. So there's like a timing lag on the calculation itself. So there probably is going to be a minor adjustment January, February. Yes. Potentially, yes. I move approval of the transmission cost of service contract. Was there any more comments? No, not anymore. And we have a motion to approve item B. We have a motion. We did. I said we have a motion to approve item B. You waited for a second. I am. Well, you didn't say it. But I'll say it. Okay. You'd like to second it. I didn't know I had to ask you, Rob. Okay. We have a motion and a second to approve item B. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Sign the same. There are none. Passes unanimously. Okay. We move to item 24-170. We have a request to speak on this agenda item. Would this person like to come forward or would you just like your comments read? Yes. My name is Charles Lee. If you'll go to the microphone so we can get you and state your name and your address, if you will. Yes. My name is Charles Lee. I live on Elmwood, North Elmwood. I am a DME customer. I've been a DME customer for the past three years, and for the past three years, my energy and water consumption has only -- I've only used less water, but my bill continues to go up. And I'm in opposed to this item because, for one thing, I voted against the bond, first of all. I voted against this bond. But not only that, but I find it objectionable that you're going to want to spend the bond money before you even sold the bond and got the money in the first place. Just like you're getting a credit card and you're trying to max the credit card out and you haven't even gotten the place or plastic in the mail yet. And I find that absolutely ridiculous. And that's all I want to say. And I just want to say, just because these bonds pass at election time, that's just one election. One election means nothing to me. And I don't understand. You guys just keep spending money, and we are in unprecedented times right now. Just because you've been operating this way for 50 years doesn't mean that these bonds are going to continue to get the money you think you're going to get when you sell them. So we could spend this money, and then what happens if they don't sell and get the price that we think at auction? Are we still going to be stuck with the money? No. I think this needs to be voted down until we get the money and then we talk about spending the money. And that's all I have to say. >> Thank you, Mr. Lee. All right. We have a presentation. Thank you. >> I'll try to get this where you all can hear me and I can see my presentation at the same time. Good morning. Randy Klingle, Treasury Manager. >> Good morning. >> I have a brief presentation regarding the reimbursement ordinance. It is the first month of the fiscal year, so this is a normal practice, and we do intend to sell bonds later on this fiscal year. It is required by the federal government that we show our intent to reimburse ourselves later with bond proceeds later in the year. This is an umbrella of all of our debt-funded capital improvement projects for this reimbursement ordinance. All the projects under that were on the budget that you just approved in September, and those were discussed over the summer periods with your budget teams and your other departments throughout that process. We will sell the bonds within 12 months. We'll actually sell them before the fiscal year end, and this reimbursement is allowed by our debt policy. An additional note we made this year is that although we do the reimbursement policy, it does not obligate us to actually sell all the bonds. As we go through the project list through the bond process, we will usually reduce the amount of dollars, depending on projects, when the departments have allotted more time where they are in their project list and in their projects and construction phases when we get to the notice of intent and the actual bond sale. So the total dollars here you will see today are the budgeted items. The detailed project list is the last four or five pages of your actual exhibit. If I don't have them on the screen today, I just have the summaries per utility fund. So solid waste is at $11.1 million, water is $58.8, wastewater $71.6, electric $74.9, with a total of all your utilities at $216,673,313, which is your budgeted amount for this fiscal year. Our next steps will come back in April with a notice of intent for just the Certificates of Obligation. We'll move forward in May for your bond parameters ordinance, which will be the final number that will be sold. And then we will sell in June and have proceeds to the City in late July. Any questions, please? Yes, sir. I have a question, and maybe in regards to Mr. Lee's concern. So this is an authorization for the departments to move forward with their projects, planning and preparation, but the bonds themselves will not be sold until later in the year based on more final numbers of actual project cost? Correct. This is an umbrella giving us authority to make those actions if we deem them necessary, and the project is in a place where we have the cash to do so. So if we didn't do this bond ordinance and someone wanted to spend money, we would have to come to you with every project and every dollar. So instead we do the entire budget, and then it's reviewed by the department heads and the budget team if they actually have the cash on hand to do that now. Okay, so if they don't have the cash on hand to do it now, then they'll have to wait until the bonds are sold and executed and the money transferred to that. So I hope that assists Mr. Lee's concerns. I think I understand the general approach, and thank you for your answers. It doesn't appear to be any more questions, so we'll entertain a motion for item B. So moved. We have a motion to approve. Would anyone like to second that? Yes, I would. We have a motion to second. Thank you, gentlemen. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, sign the same. Passes unanimously. We'll go on to item D. It's PUB 24-193. Good morning, PUB members. My name is Giovanni Pinheiro. I'm project manager, Capital Projects. I'm here to present the Dentor Solid Weight Flit Shop for the construction phase. Quick project overview. It would be a single story building, six-vehicle base with part storage. The city of Denton basically do maintenance and repairs of these heavy equipment by contractor, which require its downtime productivity. So by doing this building, the city of Denton Landfill can do the maintenance and repairs on site. Question on the statement that you just made. Can you give me an idea of how much money you're wasting, how much time you're wasting by using outside contractors? No, I don't have that information, sir, with me. Okay. Yes. Project schedule. This month, we want to award the contractor. By November, we will have the noted to proceed, the pre-construction meeting. By December 2024, we plan to start construction. By November 2025, the substantial completion. By December 2025, would be the final completion. Our staff recommend that to award this contract for a little more of $9.5 million. Any question? So do we have any idea how much time we're wasting and how much money we're expending on these services as opposed to doing it ourselves? No, I don't have that information, sir. Mr. Newquist. Or perhaps, what percentage of our fleet are we servicing ourselves now and where might we go by doing this? Good morning, board members. Seth Garcia, Deputy Director of Capital Project. Currently, they are doing things in the field or out there at the solid waste facility. And in the rare instance for PM maintenance, they're bringing it to our service center shop. Again, these are large vehicles that that service center shop isn't necessarily built for these trash trucks, especially with the amount of trucks that we have. And so part of the reason for building this was to be able to put it out there on site instead of taking it downtown to the Mingo location to be able to do. But we can we can work with solid waste to provide a response for exactly what that outside contract was that we're utilizing in that projected downtime. We just don't have those numbers today. Do you have a timeline on construction? Yes, sir. So let me go back. So we are anticipating that notice to proceed in December and then it's roughly a one year time frame. So we're hoping December of 25 have that facility operational. Thank you. Thank you. That went by so quick. No, you're good. Thank you. Any idea of jobs added or employees added by bringing this in? I'm not sure from facilities we could get with Tom Grammer. We can provide that response to if there can be adding more fleet techs. Is this a time sensitive? Everything is. But I'd like to have those numbers. And so my question is, if I should ask for those numbers for the next meeting, could that be done? First of all, and second of all, does that jeopardize your timetables of what you're wanting to do? I don't believe so. I think we could absolutely have those numbers to you by the next meeting. You know what numbers we're talking about? Yes, sir. The downtime percentage and the amount of the contracts is what I heard that we're using for an employee in the employee account. Yeah, I think we can absolutely get that information to have. Before we go further, but I don't mean to be malicious. I just, if that doesn't, if that doesn't not, well, I guess I really don't care. I want those numbers before we vote anyway. Okay. And you think we can get it within the next meeting? Yes, I absolutely think that we could get it. Again, bumping that back is going to hurt our time frame just a little bit. Again, we've got long lead materials, especially HVAC parts and things that are, that we want to get ordered as soon as possible. But again, I think within probably the week we could, we could have information to you. Thank you. Just as a comment, philosophically, I much prefer the city taking these roles on, you know, contractors make layers on top of, of the charges and having a facility in which to repair our vehicles without having to drive them 20 or 30 minutes each way or potentially tow them. They're not drivable. You know, this just makes a lot of sense. Having those details though of, of, you know, the total benefit would, would be helpful. But in general, I think this is, this is the kind of stuff I prefer to see when we have 200 heavy vehicles dedicated for refuse service. Let's service them in house. Let's not have, you know, I don't know, half a million or a million dollar contract with the third party. Let's keep that expertise here. Let's keep the travel time short. Let's know our own equipment and maintain it well. So in general, like the philosophy of this, I just, and we can provide, I believe we're doing the majority of the maintenance work through some fleet technicians that go out and visit solid waste and at our mingo service center. But if, if you guys would like additional details for, I know tires and some other things that, that we outsource, Mr. Chair, important order. Yes. Would it be best to, instead of, instead of voting against this, but to table this D until the next meeting, which would then keep the thread of cooperation and what we want intact so we don't have to create any more delay in time? I, you had a comment. I recognize that and I, I think there's probably a consensus out here to do so, I think. And additional, additional questions on this may, we need to feed them now so they can come back with answers, I believe, too, as well. Certainly. When the appropriate time, I'd like to make a motion then after we think we've had all the questions that you believe is necessary. Okay. All right. Thank you. You had something else? I did. Just going back to the same question of what's the cost, what are the delay issues in using outside sources, you've also gone with a commercial, I mean, construction manager at risk proposal. This is a CSP. This was not a C-MAR. It's got a C-MAR backup, C-MAR cost proposal. Sorry. It should have been competitive sealed proposal. Okay. But you did rate them at the same way you might a C-MAR, correct? Correct. Yes. It's still a best value selection. So you're, of the four bidders, you're spending $900,000 and some change more on this bidder because of the rating through this system. And I know that Solid Waste has done some bids out there where they've pre-qualified. That way you go with low bidder in that case if you go with pre-qualification. But in this case you didn't. I'm concerned as to why that is. I'm curious as to why that is. Yeah. So we, as a capital improvement project department, we had made a decision to get away from just strictly the low bid delivery. So competitive sealed proposal allows us to evaluate qualifications, project team, experience, building similar facilities. The low bidder, if you look through their application, had built like quick trips and retail restaurants and nothing that was similar to any kind of fleet facility. So that's why in some of their qualifications and experience they did not receive as high of points as compared to Muckaroy and Falls who was selected that has fleet shop experience. And so again, looking at if we were just to go to the low bid option, we could potentially get a bidder who had no experience building any kind of facility. Well, you could solve that problem by pre-qualifying as well. Correct. So again, if we do the pre-qualification process, it's simply just the two-part piece of having to do a request for qualifications and then go to pricing. This allows us to do it in one step. So we're essentially doing both pieces in one step through a CSP as opposed to going through a qualifications part and then doing a separate solicitation to. For $900,000, it might be worth it, you never know. It could be. Yeah, absolutely. But if we went through the pre-qualification process, that first firm wouldn't have been on the list. And so again, we likely would have ended up in the same scenario and this way we saved time. Yeah. You might have got more competition too if you've gone through pre-qualification. Yeah, and again, it is open to all bidders. We send it out through our NIGP code. And so the same bidders had the opportunity to bid on this that a pre-qual list would. Just a follow-up question with that. Did you read my opinion for the last meeting, which I was unable to attend? Your email? Yes. I did get forwarded your email, sir. Good. Okay. All right. That's it. Will there be any cross-departmental synergies? Currently we're using the Mingo facility to handle this in-house. Will this only be for solid waste or will we get the benefit of other departments being able to utilize this facility? Yeah. I would fully anticipate that it's going to be used for whatever. So again, they have six bays. If not, it's absolutely going to free up space at the Mingo facility. But having a fleet shop out there on that side of town with the access to do large equipment, so they're going to be able to service their large dozers, excavators, everything out there on site instead of taking a mobile unit to the landfill to be able to do that. So if we're looking at potential benefits to other departments, can we get an estimated impact financially of what those benefits could be? I know it would be estimated, not exact. Yeah. I can definitely make that ask to Mr. Tom Grammer. Thank you. Okay. That's probably enough for you. Thank you both. Mr. Chairman, then if I may, I move that we table D until our next meeting, at which time you will provide all of the information that we've discussed and there's a litany of things as you know. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, your request or concern, do you want that to be included in the information for the next meeting? I'd love to hear response to that. So it's going to be a full agenda for you, but that's what we want. Sounds good. We will be back. All right. Thank you. We'll need a second, sir. Yes. We have a motion. Do we have a second? We do for Mr. Ryback. All those in favor to table this item, signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? There appears to be none. Okay. Thank you, gentlemen. Okay. That was item D. We're moving on to item E, PUB 24-215. Good morning, I'm Katherine Koch, I'm a project manager at Water Utilities and I am here to present to you for your consideration a design services contract for the Ray Roberts Water Treatment Plant expansion project. It's a mouthful. A little history on the plant, the Ray Roberts Water Treatment Plant was placed into service in 2002. It has a treatment capacity of 20 million gallons. In the 2021 master plan, they identified the need to expand the facility due to our growing water demands in the city. In this project, we plan on adding an additional 20 MGD of treatment capacity at the plant. A couple of our major project components, we have two pilot tests that we will be required to do, one for the inclined plate settlers for the sedimentation basins and then for the low pressure membrane units. They're both considered innovative technologies through TCEQ, so we will have a pilot study for both of them that our design engineer will be assisting us with. A special component of this project that has to do with those low pressure membrane units is the building that will house them. We are going to build out to a capacity of 50 MGD, but only constructing the 20 MGD right now. So we'll be able to plug and play the extra 10 MGD at a time for an additional 30 in the future when we expand. And then in addition to that, we're just constructing all the ancillary treatment equipment at the plant to essentially have an entire new 20 MGD plant in addition to the existing 20 MGD. Some special project components, we plan to use a collaborative delivery approach, so a CMAR on this. We have a tight schedule for when we need this extra capacity online. So using a CMAR will help us get a higher quality product and a better timeline by utilizing schedule coordination, cost modeling, value engineering. We just believe this is the correct approach. We are fully funding this project with the Texas Water Development Board SWIFT loan, the State Water Implementation Fund of Texas. We applied for, were approved, and will soon be closing on our first year of funding for that. The total is $195 million. We used our pre-qualified engineer list of wastewater facility engineers, and through our evaluation process, we chose to use Fries and Nichols. Their total project or contract amount is $21 million. Any questions? >> I was curious why the testing has to be done on the membrane system for TCEQ. It would seem like if it's a proven technology, is testing required because each individual installation must be tested or because it's a new technology and they want to know if it will work? >> It's not a new technology. It's considered innovative. It's about 20 years old. We are certainly not the first people to be doing this. I'm not sure why they consider it innovative, but we will have at least two membrane samples on site, and we will actively be testing the water quality for what they're filtering and reporting that to TCEQ. And the inclined plate settlers, they just deviate from the traditional treatment processes. They have about half the footprint because they're increasing the surface area that the sedimentation is settling on. >> So will these membrane systems be fully built or will small demonstration systems be built to be tested, or how is that proceeding? >> They're small little units that we roll on and hook up and treat the water. >> Okay. I got you. All right. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> So this $21 million is for the full design for the 195-ish million-dollar project? >> Yes. Yes, sir. >> And so that includes, I know when this came forward in the summer, discussion on upgrading the pumping controls and pumps to be more flexible and energy efficient. That's all in this? >> Yes. Yeah. There is also an active project at the plant right now to rehab the existing plant and get it up to speed. Everything in there is 20 years old. It's just kind of reached its life. So we are currently doing that one, and we'll get an extra six to eight MGD of treatment out of that just by better efficient processes. But the $21 million is for all of that. We're starting at the beginning, we're connecting at raw water and then connecting at high service, but we're getting an entire new plant in between. >> And this is all driven by growth and increase in water demand? >> Yes. Yes, sir. >> Is this a TCEQ or the state law requirement point of demand where we have to be moving forward on construction? >> We are. >> 90% or? >> We are. Yeah. And if we don't get this additional 20 MGD online, we are currently set to exhaust our current treatment capacity by 2031, and this project is scheduled to wrap up in 2030 if we go on our projected timeline, which is a benefit of using a CMOR. >> Thank you. >> Mm-hmm. >> Any other questions? >> Question? >> Yes. >> Just curious. >> Yes, sir. >> This -- what is the total square foot -- what is the acreage footprint on all this that we've got -- the whole thing? If that's -- if you know, I'm just curious. >> We have 65 acres at the Ray Roberts plant that is owned by the city. Current footprint, I couldn't tell you. >> But we have -- my point is -- >> Yes. >> -- we have quite a bit of extra land -- >> Yes. >> -- because I'm looking at growth. You were just expanding on, so -- >> Yeah. >> -- that was my concern for future expansion, what we need to be ready for. >> Yeah, it's majority -- I don't know. The new plant is going to all be over here -- the majority of the lot is open and available to us. I would imagine we're probably built on, like, 20 acres of the 65. >> So then the -- if I may, so then this plan from Freeze Nichols, that would include a square footage footprint of the new addition. >> Yes. This -- they anticipate that this plant will be a full buildout of 110 MGD in the next 40 years. This is kind of a mock-up of the 110-dimensional plant right here. >> Okay. >> And then this is all the membrane units and the new sedimentation basins and extra membrane building, more clear wells, it'll be a lot. >> And MDG has no correlation with square feet? >> Not that I'm aware of, no. >> I didn't know. It doesn't. >> No. >> I'm just -- I'm looking at just the physical versus the practical, the use of it. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Okay. >> Move approval. >> Okay. We have a motion to approve. Do we have a second? Do we have a second? Mayor and all those in favor please say aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed? Signed the same. All right. >> Thank you. >> We'll deal with the CMAR, that one when it gets here. >> It's going to be great. >> All right. I guess that's it. We'll just move on to item F, management reports. >> Mr. Chair, members of the PUB, so you have in your packet two items that -- on two contracts, one was for coliform test media and the other one was for heavy equipment related items. Those two contracts, because of timing, went to the council first before they came to the PUB, so our process is to always bring it back to the PUB so that you're aware of that and certainly if you have any questions, I'm happy to try to get those answered for you. And so I'll see if there's any questions on any of those items. Okay. Future agenda items, I just want to give you a heads up that obviously you've tabled an item that will be coming back to you on the 28th, but the DME is also with -- in conjunction with finance plan to bring an update, our next quarterly update to the ECA and the TCRF. We are working through those numbers now. We plan to have a recommendation for you on the 28th. And then new business action items, the one item that we had on here that we had planned to bring today that we didn't was related to Mr. Rybak's question on recycling carts. I did talk with Mr. Borner. They pushed that out to the 28th. They are planning to have a work session for you on the 28th on that particular issue. And also Fleet will have their memorandum, I believe, regarding the EV questions. So with that, the only other quick items that I wanted to just mention, I already mentioned to you that Jose Gaitan will be replacing Terry Nolte. Ethan Cox has departed from the organization. He's an ACM in Burleson now apparently. And then Stephen Gay, our previous director of water utilities now, our general manager of water utilities and streets as well. And so congratulations to these folks on well-deserved promotions. So with that, happy to answer any questions you may have. Anybody? Future agenda items? Anything? Okay. I just have a curiosity question. So has Terry retired or will be leaving at the end of the year? Yeah, the plan is sometime at the end of the year. You know, sooner if he can, he told me. But certainly we're trying to hang onto him for a little bit so he can do some cross-training with Jose and a couple of other folks that are transitioning roles as well. So we'll still have him for a little bit to assure a seamless transition. Yes, sir. Thank you. Okay. Doesn't appear to be anything else. We entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. So moved. Second. We're adjourned.