Okay, it's 8 o'clock and we do have a quorum, so let's call the meeting to order.
The first item on the agenda is receive a report and hold a discussion and give staff
direction regarding the care management and proposed reuse of the closed City of Denton
Moseley Road landfill.
Good morning, Brian.
Good morning members of the committee, Brian Burner, I am the director of solid waste for
the City of Denton.
I appreciate the opportunity to talk a little bit about the Moseley Road landfill.
This is one of the City of Denton's historic landfills and I want to give you a short
history of it, talk about some regulatory requirements, we have some issues that need
to be addressed out of the facility, I'm going to be talking about some potential future
uses of the landfill also and identify some fiscal impacts as a result of this.
Moseley Road landfill, again, is one of our original landfills here at the City of Denton.
It was originally permitted by the Texas Department of Health back in 1974, operated for approximately
ten years before we moved to our current site in mid-1985.
The site total is about 75 acres, 40 of it, which constituted the disposal area proper.
Again, this site is out of closure and post-closure process, it is technically it's called a voluntary
revocation of the permit, which means we've asked that it be closed, it's not accepting
any more waste, basically it's just a large open field at the site with the trash still
on it, but again it has some current site issues that we need to address.
Again it's aged, the recent rains we've been having over the past few years, we're seeing
some subsidence occurring at the site and as a result, there's ponding water due to
the settling, erosion from the runoff, things that we have to address.
This landfill is actually located in Denton County on the east side of Lake Louisville
but it's bounded on the northeast and south side by the City of Crossroads and you have
to access the road, or access the landfill through the City of Crossroads on their maintained
roadways.
Looking at it here, just a little bit of orientation, here's Lake Louisville, here's 380 going
out towards McKinney 377 that goes up to Krugerville and Aubrey and Pilot Point, this is located
south of the facility, or south of the roadway, you can see the layout where the disposal
area is, the rest of this open area here was actually used as borough, so what we did was
we mined dirt, it was a trench fill site so we dug trenches, filled it up, compacted it,
put the dirt back over, had to mine additional soil to complete the cover on the facility
and it's basically been setting this way since 1985 with minimal maintenance other than mowing
and fencing and things of that nature.
In 2018, we had the engineering firm of Park Hill Smith and Cooper go out and do an assessment
of the facility, identify some issues that did need to be addressed, again in the terms
of subsidence, erosion, things of that nature, they did come back to us with four options.
First of all, there was the do nothing option, technically it is a closed landfill, very
minimal things that we have to do, but this really isn't viable because again of the condition
of the landfill.
We could go back in and for about a million dollars repair the side slopes, option three
is actually going in, repairing all the settling, regrade the facility, put a new cap on it
at about three and a half, three and three quarter million dollars.
Option four, which was addressed, was potentially digging up the landfill, moving the waste
to an existing site, returning this to basically a clean site, but at the cost of 40 million
dollars that is slightly cost prohibitive, so again, part of what we need to address
is what is the future use of this property, is it going to remain fallow, is there something
beneficial that we can do with it, so that's what's going to drive the in use and what
we ultimately do with this piece of property.
State of Texas through its rules, what's called subchapter T actually permits the reuse of
facilities over closed landfill sites.
If you're going to build an enclosed structure, if you're going to basically penetrate the
cap on the landfill then you have to go through a permitting process.
Ideally what the state wants you to do is to minimize any sort of penetrations into
the cap with borings, enclosed structures that may trap methane gas, create safety hazards,
any structure component that could potentially trap gas needs to be minimized or have some
sort of venting system, some sort of alarm system built in for the safety of those that
are using it.
And then again, whatever we do on site it has to protect and enhance the existing cap.
Also when you're selling this property you have to notify whoever is going to be buying
this that you are in compliance with subchapter T rules.
Again this is an enclosed landfill city property, I don't see us getting rid of this, but again
we do need to comply with the rule as we look towards redevelopment.
I do have Gary Pankin with our parks director with us today, we've been talking about potential
recreational uses out of the facility.
Once we spend a significant amount of money going back in, recapping this, regrading it,
it seems kind of a shame just to let it set again.
There's some beneficial reuse that could occur on this site, one with shortcomings, not shortcomings
but again needs that we find in the City of Denton is the need for biking areas and in
talking with our parks department it makes sense to possibly turn this into some sort
of trail type system where we can have some enclosed areas that are safe for people to
get out to bike on and then reuse this facility.
So again I talked previously about the town of Crossroads, again access into the site
is through the town of Crossroads and they have requested that the City of Denton pay
for the reconstruction of one of their roads that goes into that to the tune of a little
more than half a million dollars.
Again this is complete reconstruction, not just repair of any impact that we may affect
onto the street.
Again according to our legal group we really have no legal obligation to compensate them,
we have a site there, state requires that we have access into that facility.
So again that brings us to three different options, either we pay fully to reconstruct
Potter Sharp Road which is the access that we want to use, we try to come to some compensation
in terms of incremental impact or we recognize our right to use the road and just continue
to use it and go from there.
So as we move forward in our next steps we would recommend that we proceed with option
three at that full repair of about three and three quarters of a million dollars, develop
specifications, set the grades ideally for use in a future recreation use and also seek
some direction on how we want to proceed with the City of Crossroads in terms of site access.
I think in the long term this being as close to the City of Crossroads as it is and them
having no recreational facilities within their city proper there seems to be an opportunity
for us to potentially partner with them on this bike facility and some recreational uses
within the city that would more than compensate for the use of that road in that area.
So with that I want to open this up for any questions and for myself, Mr. Packen, and
then we'll take direction from there.
I just had a quick question and maybe this is one for Mr. Packen, have you thought about
using it as a tree farm?
That would be quite low impact and we need the...
Again we cannot penetrate the cap so anything to be planted that would count, yes.
We cannot plant, I mean we plant grasses to control erosion but we can't, we've got to
control trees and roots and things of that nature.
So how far down can you go before it penetrates the cap?
Well the cap starts at the ground surface and it'll go anywhere from about 18 to 36
inches deep.
Okay, thanks.
Excuse me, what is the cap made of?
Is it concrete?
No, it's clay and compacted soils.
Okay.
Is there still decomposing matter under the cap?
That's a really good question.
In studies that have been done there's not been any methane detected and that's usually
indication of decomposition but again this being a closed landfill I'm not going to...
You never say never.
There's probably still some trash there that is in the decomposition stage but we're not
picking up any methane from that facility.
So is there a monitoring...
Is there monitoring happening?
No, there is not methane monitoring happening.
There is not a methane monitor at the site but as part of the assessment there was methane
monitoring completed.
I see.
Okay, thanks.
Okay.
The $600,000 for rebuilding a road, is that included in the 3.8 million?
No, it is not.
So you're asking the city for $600,000 plus 3.8 million?
Correct.
Is that amount budgeted?
We do have that amount set in reserve right now.
Okay.
And being as old as it is it had no liners underneath it to the extent that we do it
today?
Correct.
It's considered a pre-subtitled facility so again as you were doing the trench you did
lay down your clay and compacted it but again it's not built to the integrity of the landfills
today.
Which is why you looked at option four but it's...
Correct.
Cost prohibitive.
Is anything other than a bike trail investigated as a use for that property?
I want to ask Mr. Packen to come in and talk about future recreation uses that have been
considered.
Gary Packen, Director of Parks and Recreation, I'm not as tall as Brian's.
The other option is just a regular hiking trail.
We've been working with our mountain bike group, focus group, during our mass plan process
and they like the location.
There's no trees on the large portion, that's 75 acres, so that's the downside of it.
We are looking at another location in town, a little closer as well.
So either a hike trail or a bike trail would probably be our two suggested locations.
From a biking standpoint, there's an adjacent 30 acres that's Army Corps property.
Just to see, nope, wrong way.
So this location right here is Army Corps property and then just on the other side of
Mosley is Army Corps property as well.
If we went from a hiking trail, we could expand this into this area here.
This is a creek here.
But we could actually have additional trails through this heavily wooded area and then
also take people out to the lake for a hiking trail as well.
But we can't have bikes in that area based on how the Army Corps of Engineer qualifies
that space.
We don't have any vehicle and they classify a bike as a vehicle.
So if we went from a hiking standpoint, we could expand it by probably another 50 acres
of hiking trails for the community.
Okay, on the budget side of this, you said it was in reserves.
So the plan is to reimburse or just give Crossroads the $600,000 a year ticket, that portion's
yours?
That's part of the discussion that we need to have is Crossroads.
Again, we would probably end reimbursement the way that we would handle that.
Okay.
And the $3.8 million or $3.7 million, that would be run through the city's budgetary
process?
Correct.
As I said, we have that in reserves.
We would do a budget amendment as we go forward with the bidding and letting of this process.
Okay, yeah.
I think my concern would be, I don't think the city of Crossroads has the infrastructure
that Denton does to run a large project like that.
And so we wouldn't just buy the road from them for 3.7.
We would actually do the reconstruction and it would be run through our engineering department.
Again, this is a city of Crossroads road.
The estimate that for the reconstruction was done by their city engineer, they would let
it just like they would build any other road.
Okay.
That answers my question.
Thank you.
Is there a lifetime associated with a cap?
Is there a period at which after a certain amount of time it disintegrates or needs to
be replaced?
No.
As long as the drainage is set and, you know, you monitor that -- you monitor how the integrity
of the trash is managed there, then, you know, as long as it's, you know, has significant
vegetative cover, i.e., grasses and things to control erosion, then it can last a significant
amount of time.
The issue here is that the -- in that the cap -- in that you had a lot of decaying garbage
and with the heavy rains that we've had in the past eight or ten years, that has actually
impacted the integrity of that cap.
Okay.
Seeing as how there is decaying garbage, as you mentioned before, and they're looking
at making this a hiking and biking area, is there any thought about instituting some sort
of yearly or twice a year monitoring of the site to make sure that there aren't any toxic
gases coming off the thing?
No, going forward, we will be doing, you know, at least a biannual assessment of the facility.
Given that it's been since '85, since any garbage has been put in there, and currently
the post-closure monitoring requirement for new landfills is 30 years, we would even be
outside of that, so there's really not an issue with any sort of gases that come off
the facility.
Okay.
All right.
Thank you.
Okay.
Any other questions?
On the road, have we ever done that before where we paid another city for upgrading a
road?
From what I understand, when the road, when the landfill was operational, we did go in
and rebuild part of another road, Mosley Road, which comes around the west side of the facility.
We did pay for part of the reconstruction of that road, but again, that was back in the
late '70s, early '80s when that happened.
Okay.
Is there an item that you need some direction on?
I need some direction on that, how we go about proceeding.
Actually on the, I think we fixed the landfill the way we should fix it, at the 3.8 million.
How does the rest of the board feel?
It's not a boat, it's just a direction.
I don't see that we've got much choice on that.
You don't just patch it.
You fix it.
But this is not a done deal.
We don't know how that's going to proceed.
I mean, I see the dollar amount.
You're just asking for - No.
Option three, though, just the repairing of the landfill, not the road piece.
Is all I'm asking.
Yeah.
Do we -
Yeah, there are really four options.
Well, actually, there's only two options.
We're not going to not do anything, and we're not going to move the way, so either we just
repair the side slopes, or we go forward and do a full repair of the cap that's on us.
I'd need to repair it, rather than just patch it.
And then on the road.
I mean, staff would consider direction, and I think it would be staff's recommendation
that we partner with Crossroads, because they're going to see some benefit due to this recreational
facility going in in this area, also.
So I would -
Yeah, and we want to be a good neighbor.
We want to be a good neighbor.
All right.
I have a question.
Yes, sir.
As the idea of transferring ownership, or part ownership, of this to Crossroads ever
been discussed, since they're there, and we're here, and we're on the other side of the lake.
It's further away from Denton proper.
It has not yet, but again, in pursuant to subchapter T, we would have to bring it out
to a certain level.
We would have to do this work before we'd even consider -
You might want to think about some approach to that.
To me, it would make sense.
It's in their backyard.
Well, you also have to keep in mind that they may not want it.
Yeah.
There's a liability associated with it.
So, I mean, it's the city that's in it, and so I don't see many communities wanting to
accept a former landfill, because I would assume if we deeded it to them, however way,
they would be responsible for future monitoring.
Correct.
Right.
Any type of permitting, et cetera, et cetera.
That would take a heck of an agreement to accomplish, to rid ourselves of the obligations
there.
Yes, it would.
So, yeah.
All right.
Do you have what you need?
I have what I need.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
All right.
The next item is our consent agenda.
Does any board member wish to pull an item?
Yes.
I have a question on the first one.
On A?
Do I need to tell you all the ones?
Yep.
You want to pull A?
And B?
Or excuse me, D?
Or then Delta?
E is in Echo.
Okay.
H?
Or then Harley-Davidson.
Okay.
Retired guy.
Says the retired guy.
So then, do we have a motion to approve B, C, F, and G?
No approval.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
Carries.
Okay.
Item A.
Item A is the amendment to the Garver engineers contract.
First amendment to the, yep, for Garver LLC.
All right.
I'm Frank Pugsley, Director of Water Utilities, and just a little background on that project.
Garver is the design engineer on the Lake Louisville water treatment plant solids handling
system and that is where we're going to install a belt filter press and some additional recycle
pumps to manage our water treatment residuals and also this project will let us recover
and recycle some of the wasted water that was otherwise going to the sewer.
So Garver is going to be performing our construction administration and construction observation
services.
Just a suggestion on that, have you talked about any kind of acceptance criteria for
this sludge dewatering system, meaning how many tons per hour of throughput you want
and what moisture you want removed from the sludge?
Yes, absolutely.
Those are all part of the design and we went through a pretty extensive design evaluation
of different technologies, so yes, we have a target moisture content and a target throughput
for the facility.
That's it.
All right.
So just to clarify, this is for the administration of the contract, we okay to contract with
the actual construction company?
Yes, ma'am.
Already?
Yes.
Yeah.
Okay.
Do we have a motion to approve?
I move we approve.
Any second?
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Aye.
Item A. D. Consider recommending adoption of an ordinance for the City of Denton, a Texas
Home Rule Municipal Corporation with TMPA.
Good morning, PB.
My name is Smith Day, Denton Municipal Electric.
I'm the regulatory and risk division manager.
I do have, depending on how in-depth you want to go, I do have a presentation.
We can do some things.
I just have a simple question.
Yes, sir.
Is the $2.8 million budgeted in the density?
In the city?
Yes, sir.
It's part of the proposed DME proposed city budget for the general budget.
I have a question before we, I'm sorry.
Nope.
Just, should some of this be discussed in executive session if he's going to put a presentation
on?
I, no, it's on the agenda, so it's.
No, this is not confidential.
Yeah.
So there's no detail.
Okay.
And I was going to ask you, since you are the board member for TMPA representing us,
this is all.
Yes.
Within.
This has already been approved through the TMPA and now proposing it through the city.
All right.
Process.
Yes, sir.
Each city, because the budget increase was 20% or greater.
Right.
That triggers a provision in the joint operating agreement where each city must agree to that
increase.
Okay.
Do we have a motion to approve this item?
I move we approve.
And the second?
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Aye.
Carries.
E.
Okay, it's me again, Smith-A, DME.
So this is E, this is the amendment to the joint operating agreement, it was more of
a housekeeping item to clean up a couple of problems in the original joint operating agreement.
It made clear unambiguously that all cities that participated in the generation at any
time were going to participate in the decommissioning of the generator.
One of the cities had in the last couple of years gotten out of the power sales agreement
so there was an ambiguity there, hey, should this participant stay for the decommissioning
or not?
So this clears that up.
It also clears up an issue that the Texas security general had with the reclamation
bonds.
So again, that 20% increase provision with the reclamation bonds, there was a provision
that if say there was a city, one of the four cities had an issue with this credit rating
going down and that triggered a provision to add more to the bond funds, the bond reserves,
that hey, if this 20% is sitting there, that's kind of a back door way of avoiding that.
Something that all the cities through TMPA already agreed to and the attorney general
had a dim view of that so that was to correct that.
The only other thing was left is that this makes it clear that the mine property can
be sold piecemeal in different hunks and not all is one and it can be done with the proper
bonding.
>> Okay.
>> The only question I had is and after reading the text of amendment 3, it's my understanding
that authorizing the mayor to represent Denton excludes giving him the authority to make
financial commitments for the city of Denton.
Is that true?
In other words, I don't think the mayor -- I don't think you're giving the mayor exclusive
authority to make financial obligations for the whole city of Denton, are you?
>> I don't believe that's true.
>> We'll have our attorney.
>> Larry Callister of city attorney's office.
No, the mayor does not have unilateral authority under that agreement to encumber any funds
to the city.
That comes back to council.
That's a recommendation to the PV.
>> I just wanted to clarify that.
>> All these rules had to be changed over the past few years with the 2019 plan which
is now turned into the 20 who knows when plan.
>> Do we have a motion to approve this item?
>> I move we approve.
>> And a second?
>> Second.
>> All in favor say aye.
>> Aye.
>> Each carries.
And H.
>> Thank you.
Item H.
>> H concerns the --
>> Oh, it's change order between Denton and DDM construction corporation for the Bonnie
Bray round about.
>> Right.
>> Good morning, board members.
I'm Jim Jenks.
I'm senior engineer with capital improvements department.
This is the first change order on this construction contract and it was basically the original
contract was awarded at the May 21st city council meeting at which time staff did inform
council there will be a change order coming up that will pertain to the addition of the
water line relocation work to this project.
That is the majority of this change order amount both in the dollar amount and the added
days.
I can tell you at this point almost all of that water line is in now and we have Bonnie
Bray street open to traffic one direction north and south.
We managed to do that before the UNT classes started up which was our objective from the
start and we did it.
But at any rate, that's the crux of it.
There are some other items of work within the change order that it entails particularly
related to the expediting of work to meet that schedule.
And I've broken it out in great detail I realize in the attachments.
I don't mean to be overwhelming with that but we wanted to show each individual item
of work within each of the major items.
With that I'll stand for any questions.
>> Part of this extra is to relocate a 20 inch or 16 inch and a 12 inch water line that
was a surprise to somebody that they didn't know needed to be relocated, right?
>> Well, no, sir.
It was part of the roundabout project throughout.
It was earlier this year the intent was to add that work as a change order to another
project where we already had a contractor on site.
However, we realized that geographically that job site is too far away from that contractor's
site and so we had to change plans.
We realized we couldn't add it to that contract so we had to add it to this one.
But that scope of work was part of this roundabout project.
>> One other question.
What process do you have to identify and revise your underground utility drawings to show
field information you discovered about things that are there that you didn't know were there?
>> That's a good question.
We have on every project we require when a contractor installs new lines or even discovers
existing facilities that are not where we thought they were, they have to add them to
what we call the record drawings.
The contractor keeps a record of those during the construction phase.
Our inspector keeps track of them as well.
And we don't accept the project is complete until the contractor has provided our consulting
engineer those record drawings for the engineer to draw up and put into the CAD plans and
seal them and deliver to us as part of the final package.
And then going forward we keep those records digitally so we have access to them in the
future.
>> Good.
>> Okay.
Any other questions?
Okay.
Do we have a motion to approve this item?
>> I move we approve.
>> And a second?
>> Second.
>> All right.
All in favor say aye.
>> Aye.
>> Okay.
Motion carries.
Next item is approval of minutes of the August 26, 2019 board meeting.
Were there any changes or suggestions?
Then they stand approved as presented.
And the next item is consider recommending adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton,
Texas authorizing the expenditure of funds for the payment of wholesale transmission
charges.
I won't read the whole thing.
>> Tony Puente, chief financial officer, interim GM for DME.
This is really just a kind of administrative approval process in the past.
These charges, which are regulatory in nature, were simply processed by staff, but due to
some staff changes back in 2017, we brought these forward to the PAB and also to the council.
These are wholesale transmission charges that are allocated to the City of Denton for the
entire ERCOT system, very similar to the types of charges that we get paid for transmission
assets that the city owns and also pays to construct or repair.
So with that, if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
>> Questions?
>> Yeah, I have a question.
And I'm asking out of ignorance here because I simply don't know the answer to this.
Is there a standard formula from FERC or some other organization that defines what method
these transmission providers use to select the costs that are included and then distributed?
Is there a standard methodology for calculating these costs by each of these transmission
providers?
>> There is, and that is overseen by the PUCT, and so periodically these utilities will have
to go to the PUC or really on an interim basis and file rate cases that justify the assets
that are included and also the expenditures that have been made for those so they can
be allocated out.
>> So there are six different transmission providers here.
So is the method that all six use the same to include cost?
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
>> All right.
Any other questions?
We have a motion to approve.
>> I move we approve.
>> Is there a second?
Ed's got the second.
All in favor say aye.
>> Aye.
>> All right.
Next item is consider recommending the adoption of an ordinance to the City of Denton between
DB Denton II LLC.
>> Sorry, had to correct the spelling error.
>> It's all right.
>> Good morning, board members.
My name is Kenny Banks.
I'm the general manager of utilities.
This project has been quite a while coming.
It is associated with the Razor Ranch development.
And it involves a sewer line that runs from scripture road down to I-35.
So portions of Razor Ranch are currently served by an existing ten inch sewer line that runs
from scripture to I-35.
The water and sewer analyses that were used to determine what kind of infrastructure we
needed at full build out for Razor Ranch were completed by Kimley horn in 2007.
And they were summarized in the general development plan for Razor Ranch.
These analyses indicated that that scripture to I-35 line would need to be upsized because
the amount of flow that would be possible going through that line would be exceeded
at some point in the development.
And it would require an upsize from the ten inch to 12 and possibly 15 inch line.
The existing sewer line is currently at capacity.
And we've actually routed a portion of the flow to the temporarily to the north by the
larger line at university.
And we are in need of basically upsizing this line.
So the developer is paying for the complete cost associated with this line.
And that is what is described in the agreement that is included in your backup.
Denton will manage the project and will install a portion of the line near I-35 using city
denton construction crews that will be included in the cost that the developer will cover.
And we will have to use a boring contractor for a portion of it due to some of the underground
infrastructure that is in that area.
We've done some additional analyses through our engineering department and determined
that a 12 inch line is sufficient for the northern section.
And we will do a 15 to 16 inch line on the southern section.
A good portion of this project will be done through pipe bursting technology where we're
actually going through the existing pipe and breaking that pipe apart and pulling a new
piece of pipe in behind it.
And so we're hoping that by doing that we'll be able to move relatively quickly, also be
minimally invasive in the area because we don't have to unearth the entirety of the
pipe, just have to unearth it at a few sections.
So again the developer's funds are going to be used solely for the design permitting
construction management and total installation of the project.
The developer has provided those funds to the city in the current amount of $9.98, $7.98
and we have those in hand and we are hoping to $7.78, I apologize.
We're hoping to get this project started as quickly as possible and we are recommending
approval of the ordinance that will be taken to council for this project.
And I'd be happy to answer any questions.
>> Do we have questions?
>> I have a question.
This may not have any relevance but I just am curious.
This study was completed in 2007?
>> Correct.
>> And when that was-- that study said that somewhere down the line this is going to have
to be done?
>> Correct.
>> My question is-- and this is not pointing fingers or anything but just asking why wasn't
this initially done then?
>> It had to do with the overall development phase of Razor Ranch so it would have been
putting the infrastructure in well ahead of when it was actually needed.
What we're hoping to do is basically get to the point and we are a little bit past where
I'd like to be but my recommendation on something like this would be to wait until we get fairly
close to the overall capacity of the line before we replace it with a new line.
That way you get the maximum life out of your infrastructure once that's done.
In other words, had we done this in 2007, we'd have 12 years worth of infrastructure
in the ground that we really didn't need.
So our hope is to get it done at a time where it's most appropriate and that will give us
the maximum overall lifespan of that infrastructure.
>> Yeah, I was just curious because I wondered what the difference in cost would be and how
that would balance out with the capacity needs.
>> Yes, it definitely is something that if you get in there earlier, it's-- construction
cost as a general rule have a tendency to continue to rise and now in particular is
a time where we're seeing a fairly large rise in construction on a relative basis.
But again, you have to weigh that against the overall replacement of the infrastructure
and the timing of when the developer would like to put the funds in place and so it's--
we're at a point now where we have enough time to complete this project.
We've done a few things to ensure that we have routed the sewage appropriately so that
we can complete this project.
But I understand what you're saying.
Construction cost, it's always a balance between when you want to do it, when it makes sense
financially, when it makes sense capacity-wise and then also how can you get the maximum
out of your lifespan.
>> Thank you.
>> Mm-hmm.
>> What is the useful life of the sewage line typically?
So if we would have done it earlier, were we halfway into the life and we weren't even
at capacity?
>> Yeah, that's an interesting question.
It depends on a lot of factors.
We camera all of our infrastructure assets on the sewer side in the city and we have
an asset management program that we run with that information.
And so the short answer and it's the answer you're likely going to hear out of the consultants
in the profession, it depends, we-- what we're going to do is we'll basically be cameraing
this line just like we will with any other and our goal is just simply to get the maximum
lifespan.
If we've got shifting soils that have a tendency to be expansive and contractive, you've
got a tendency to get a little bit less lifespan, it would not be unusual at all for something
like this to be able to last 30 plus years.
>> Okay.
Thank you.
Any other questions?
Do we have a motion to approve?
>> I'll second.
>> All in favor say aye.
>> Aye.
>> Motion carries.
>> Thank you.
>> ACM update.
>> Yes.
Good morning, members of the board.
The ACM update is just a city manager update and we provide this on a-- as you all meet
just to provide you just with memorandums based on questions that have been brought
up by board members so that we can follow up with you as opposed to full-fledged presentation
to keep the meetings going hopefully smoothly and quickly.
We try to provide these to you in a memorandum or just through some kind of document for
your review.
Based on the most recent request, we had had a request about audit measures on one of our
billing and printing contracts included in your packet is a memorandum from Tiffany Thompson,
Director of Customer Service.
She's present here if any board members have specific questions about the memo.
Outside of that, if you look ahead on your new business matrix, there are a few items
that are still pending that we'll be bringing back to the board whether through a presentation
or even through a memorandum update on the energy center.
We try to do those on a quarterly basis.
That way you all can see how the quarter performed on a look back basis and then we also got
an item there for a multifamily recycling.
So more than likely we'll be bringing it to the PUB and also to the committee on the environment.
So if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer or Ms. Thompson's here as well.
Thank you for the reply.
Just a comment.
Maybe a suggestion to go forward with the council discussion and where the work sessions
is orientations.
Again, I know we discussed this last time, because we could I think we could all educate
ourselves better on how the PUC determines transmission reimbursements, how ERCOT determines
our production reimbursements, and just an overview, you know, we're not trying to get
into the electrical business, obviously, but we can certainly do that.
I also forgot to welcome our two newest board members, Charlie Parker and Barbara Russell.
Why don't you tell us just a little bit about yourselves.
You go first, Charlie.
Okay.
My name is Charlie Parker.
We are not related.
That's correct.
My wife and I moved to Denton about 21 years ago and raised our kids here and have enjoyed
our time in Denton by way of background, I guess my education is as a financial analyst,
and my work life has pretty much been a small business person.
Right now I have several properties here in Denton and some in New Mexico that I own and
manage and that's pretty much what we do.
Welcome back, Barbara.
Well we've been in Denton 50 plus years.
I'm a realtor and a small business owner and interested in being of service.
Concluding items, are there any items that a board member would like to have on the agenda
in the future?
Okay.
Hearing none, do we have a motion to adjourn?
So moved.
All right.
That was Billy.
It always will be.
- We're adjourned.