It's nine o'clock, good morning and welcome to the Public Utility Board meeting of the
City of Ditten of Monday, April 14th, 2025 and we will call that meeting to order.
Are there any presentation from members of the public?
Nope, we have our last member here.
All right, we're gonna move on to the consent agenda.
Are there any items that any of the board members would like to pull from the consent
agenda?
Item B?
Item B, I'll pull D as in dog, so items B and D have been pulled.
Then we will entertain a motion on items A, C and E on the consent agenda.
We have a motion.
Second.
We have a second from Mr. Taylor.
All those in favor, please say aye.
Aye.
Any opposed, sign the same, passes unanimously.
Item B is in boy.
All right, good morning board members, Seth Garcia, Interim Director of Capital Projects.
We did create a little brief presentation to run through really quickly and then I would
be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
All right, so the change order before you today is for Bonnie Bray phase three.
So just a little reminder, Bonnie Bray phase three is the widening, the third phase of
Bonnie Bray, from Rose Lawn all the way to Interstate 35 Service Road, very closely to
the merge.
We are going from a two-lane rural section to a four-lane section.
We're adding in sidewalks, utility upgrades, as well as street lighting.
So for our project schedule, we awarded this contract in August of 2023.
We did hold off on issuing the NTP as long as we can, so there was two critical factors
that were kind of driving this project.
One was the merge project for TxDOT at I-35.
There was a sewer line that we were forced to relocate and provide a connection tie-in
point that was going to be in conflict with some TxDOT drill piers for the new crossing
underneath 35.
So TxDOT gave us a timeline for when we had to get that completed on the north end of
the job.
What brought us here today is the NLINK gas line conflict that was on the south end of
the job, or the Rose Lawn side.
So once council approved the construction contract, we were able to get a contract with
NLINK approved on December 12th.
Through communications with NLINK, we were looking at approximately 90 days for them
to acquire easements to be able to begin their work.
It took them about nine months to ultimately acquire all the easements needed.
Once they were able to acquire the easements needed, they were able to perform their relocations
and cleared those relocations in October of 2024.
During that time, of course, we were working on the north end of the project to meet the
TxDOT timeline for tying in FM 15, 15, and 35, and ultimately relocating that sewer line.
Right now, our goal is to have substantial completion in September of 2026 and final
completion in November of 2026.
So for previous change orders, we've processed two contingency requests.
Both are related to some of the wastewater work that's been done with the project.
That first one was for $44,000 to correct some quantities that were vetted through the
submittal process.
The second one was for a water line work, again, that was done at I-35, and some field
changes for some bore conflicts at the railroad, at the KCS Railroad.
So again, we had to make some slight modifications.
That one was roughly $365,000.
And then today, the change order for really increased escalation costs and the 210 days
to keep the contractor out there for additional work is just over the $3.3 million.
Again, we've worked with the contractor.
The original cost that came through on the first submittal was over $4 million.
So we were able to negotiate over $700,000 of that down.
This is a NTE for this change order.
So we're going to be verifying these quantities and additional costs as we come through.
If the contractor does finish early, they've committed to providing some of that funding
back to the city, so we're not going to pay for costs that are actually not incurred.
Again, this is a 4.66% increase over the original not to exceed amount.
And so with that, we're recommending approval of this change order in the total amount of
just over $2.3 million.
Again, the total change order is just over $3.3 million, utilizing the existing contingency
first and then requesting an additional $2.3 million.
Yes, sir?
I have a question, could you go back one slide?
So you said your increase over the not to exceed amount was a little over 4.5%?
Correct.
But on the far right-hand side, it says authorized and authorized NTE, I only see a few hundred
thousand dollars difference on $42 million.
Am I missing something about that 4.6% or do I have my math wrong?
No, that's a great question.
So as part of this, and it is in the backup information, I don't know that it's on this
slide, we are requesting roughly $500,000 more than what this change order was.
Again, that will backfill our contingency bank to allow us to continue to approve changes
and work through things as we go through the remainder of construction.
And so the total contract is the, excuse me, the total change order is $3.3 million.
That is providing roughly $500,000 in remaining additional contingency after approval of this
change order for us to work through construction issues as we go forward.
Okay.
And that's the difference that you're seeing in the 197 and 707.
So that's a small difference compared to the 4.5% difference.
Correct.
But that total is still included in the 42.7 million.
That's a good question.
Next, anybody else?
Okay.
So really the 3.389, 89, 100, the original subcontract was 38, correct?
Yes, sir, 38, 398.
So total change over almost 9% is what we're...
Correct.
Total change over original bid is 9%.
Again, we carry a 5% contingency in the original NTE.
So we've used that above that original NTE.
Well, they've used that.
I don't think you're going to use it anymore, but...
Correct.
So their original submittal was $700,000 higher than what you approved, correct?
Correct.
Okay.
And that was...
So at what point did we find out that this was going to affect the project after the
contract was awarded?
Was it after the contract was awarded?
Yeah.
So again, once we executed the contract through council, we delayed that NTP for two months
to try and allow as much time as we could for NLINK to process their agreement and start
acquiring those easements.
Again, we were working on the assumption that they had been communicating with property
owners and they were going to be able to execute easement agreements within 90 days.
Had we met that timeline, we don't feel there would have been an impact to the project.
So at that point, Sunt moved 10 trailers out there and 30 guys?
So they moved one trailer, but began all the utility work on the north end of the job,
again, to clear that wastewater line, as well as meet the tie in for FM 1515 and the 35
merge, which is happening this month.
So we kind of had two independent timelines that we were tracking, one with the gas line
on the south end, one with the textile relocation and tie in on the north end.
So again, a lot of the labor is coming from the additional 210 days.
Ultimately, the best process would have been stop the job and let's wait until we can clear
that in.
Unfortunately, that was not a possibility with the timeline we were meeting on the textile
side.
And so we essentially extended out the project 210 days.
So basically, that's $14,585 per day paying for their overhead fee, correct?
Did you look at that?
So the total labor and general conditions portion of this specific change order is $2
million.
What's the $3.3 million?
So $3.3 million is the total.
That is all general conditions, labor, equipment escalations, materials, subcontractor costs,
and then bonds and insurance.
So are those separated items at $2.3 million?
I thought that was based on funding, on where you're getting your funding, right?
What part is the overhead?
So I've got that in the separate breakout that came with the change order.
So the overhead general conditions cost total for labor, equipment, overhead, and facilities
is roughly $2.2 million.
That's what they're calling it?
I mean, that's not including the general conditions.
That is the general conditions.
So labor and equipment, if labor and equipment is part of general conditions, how are you
defining general conditions?
So labor is tied to it.
There is equipment that's tied to general requirements of the contract for general conditions.
So that would be like sweeping, site cleanup, things that are required by the contract.
All other labor and equipment charges are broken into their individual work categories.
That's making up the difference between the $2.2 million and the $3.38 million.
And get the escalation part of the not being able to tear loose on the project, and get
the general conditions, they just seem pretty high.
I mean, did y'all, is there, remind me, what specs are you using on this project?
They're the City of Denton specifications.
I believe they're the 2021 revisions.
So it would include some points you tie to TxDOT, other points you tie to COGS?
We got rid of a lot of the COG references.
We do have some TxDOT references because we're tying into TxDOT facilities.
But for the majority, it is City of Denton specific specifications.
So your standby time, which is basically what they're saying it was, right?
So not technically, again, because we were continuing to progress work on the north end
to meet the TxDOT.
So we're looking at full general conditions, not just kind of a skeleton standby time.
That would be typical if we shut the project down and cleared the inlink gas line.
So we still had project management staff, project engineering staff.
One trailer though.
One trailer.
Yeah.
So the facility charges for the additional 210 days, that includes the trailer, water
services, all the components that go into the general condition side of the facility
is $73,800.
Oh, okay.
That's all that was.
Correct.
So that's under $100,000.
That's a little...
Go ahead.
For the project engineers, project managers, superintendents that are going to be on site
for the additional 210 days, that's where we're incurring a lot of the general conditions
costs for folks that are not tied to specific packages of work, or that would be built into
a unit price cost.
But they were...
What were they charging?
Two-home office or...?
They were still on the job site monitoring all the utility work and the paving work on
the north end of the job.
Sorry for these questions, but...
No, you're fine.
From where?
Where were these guys sitting?
In the trailer at the job site.
How many guys were in that trailer?
So I believe there's four plus the survey crew.
Okay.
That's two points.
So we have a full-time project manager, two project engineers, one full-time superintendent
that's not tied to a portion of the work, and then a two-and-a-half man, I believe,
survey crew.
And that was $2.3 million for that.
Correct.
Plus the escalations for all the labor for the folks that were supposed to be there a
year prior.
Yeah.
2.3 and then one point something for that.
Is that right?
Total labor was 1.8.
Yeah.
Okay.
Wow.
Yes, sir.
So again, and hopefully we are able to finish the project a little bit early and we'll see
a realized savings on some of this come back.
Yeah, that'd be great.
So Sun has been really phenomenal work with, again, they are wanting to be fair with the
city and a separate project, Neighborhood 2 and 6, we're just wrapping up GMP 1.
They're giving back almost $700,000 worth of contingency that went unused.
So again, I do feel that there are $700,000 that you guys got cut out of there.
I'm going to do cost validation and all that comparison is that when you do those cost
validations, do you do them or do you hire them out to the engineer?
So both.
We look at it as a total project team.
So it would be CIP staff, engineering staff, and then anybody else that from development
services engineering or anybody else that we bring in.
Okay.
Yes, sir.
All right, but 9% is really what we're paying 8.67 or whatever the number is.
Yes, sir.
So total it is 9.89.
Okay.
All right.
Well, that sucks, but let's move on, I guess.
Anybody want to make a motion to approve this?
I'll move approval.
Second.
We have a motion and a second.
All those in favor, please say aye.
Aye.
Any opposed?
Sign the same.
Aye.
All right.
Moving forward.
It passes almost unanimously.
Item number D is in dog.
That is the PUB 25-051.
Consider recommending adoption of organs to the city of Denton at Texas Home Rule Municipal
Corporation.
This is the Robin Wood Reconstruction Project.
Good morning, everybody.
Sheldon Gittwit, Capital Projects.
I have a slideshow presentation if you guys want to see it as well.
All right.
Thank you guys for having me today for the Robin Wood Reconstruction change order number
one.
So just a quick project overview.
The project consists of full depth rope reconstruction of the street segments, Robin Wood, Clover,
Drive Oak, Shady Wood, Misty Wood, and along with some asphalt paving, concrete curb and
gutters, storm water inlets, pipes, and driveway replacements needed.
In the documentation for this change order, it was a swap out of lime stabilization with
the original contract to a cement stabilization along with the additional work on the asphalt
work for the first section.
So we have the items being swapped out, lime stabilization and lime material for stabilization
with cement material stabilization and cement stabilization manipulation.
And again, for that first phase, we're going to have removal of that two inch lift that
we put, an additional two inch lift being placed back on that first phase.
Another reason for this, the background, back in January 28th, 2025, Texas bit informed
staff of a sandy type subgrade, which you see right there in the picture.
And then on February 3rd, direction was given from leadership to call Robert Kissner back
to proceed with testing for a more internal discussion as far as the subgrade rework.
And then we got our test results February 17th from Robert, which recommended cement
series, and then on March 6th, change our order for approval for the change board.
So the reason for us going with a cement stabilization, we took the geotechnical reports from 2023
whenever utilities had their Robinwood clover project, which recommended a lime series to
be for stabilization.
But once contractors did open up the road, they found the material to be a lot more sandy
and more of the area.
So recommendations for that was just submit series throughout the whole entire project.
And recommendation for this is the approval of this change board with an amount of 434.
And again, this is going to be eating up the contracts contingency of 133 while additionally
requesting 200,000 additional contingency.
You guys have any questions?
So the thank you for the presentation that explains the change with me fine, except for
we put is it not, are we not required to put the contingency in a presentation at all?
The change order here on the item says $300,000.
So that's the amount just over what you were allowed for the contingency, correct?
Correct.
All right.
So in other words, any change orders within the contingency don't have to come out of
engineering, correct?
Correct.
Okay.
All right.
Just wanted to verify that.
Anybody else got any more questions?
So I'm just just to understand the not very familiar with road construction, the total.
So that's about a half a mile of Robinwood and then several other blocks there.
Do you have a total like lane miles or linear feet of the project?
I do have linear feet again, not on top of my head right now, but I can get that to you
after this meeting.
Okay.
Yeah.
So I guess it's the lime stabilization, so Denton basically has two soil types with kind
of expansive clay and then the sand.
And so I guess is the lime stabilization commonly used in like the more expansive clay?
Correct.
Okay.
And so if it had been, it just, they happen to have that sand, that band of sandy soil
over there.
Yeah.
It was just kind of one of those things where we looked at our first report from Rob Kessner
back in 2023 where he did recommend the sand as far as the core locations.
They were on the outer parts of the street, so, and we noticed on site, once you get to
that curb line, it becomes a little bit more clay, but once we were in that middle section
of the road, that's a lot more sandy, like a wet beach sand type.
So it's kind of one of those things where, all right, we should have really got course
from this middle as well.
And then that's the cement stabilization, is that like, that's not like concrete, that's
like a cement containing grout kind of material or is that, how do you describe it, I guess?
It's like a, it's almost like a hydrated lime, but it's just a cement version, of course,
it's like a, almost like grout and cement mixture in between, it's kind of like a slurry
almost really.
Okay.
So not like concrete, but like a lower grade, lower concrete, the cement content.
Okay.
Thank you.
Well, that begs the question, so do they, will they be turning it in and mixing it therefore
with us?
They'll be mixing it into the subgrade 12 inches.
How deep do they go?
12 inches.
Just one foot?
Yes, sir.
Oh, interesting.
Thank you.
So what is your timeline now?
I may have missed it if you already brought it up.
Well, actually, since we're changing to a cement, it will be a lot faster because the
cure time will be cut down significantly and they already actually just submitted and stabilized
all of Robinwood and we're about to put the first lift on right now.
So the side streets, we're going to tackle within the next couple of weeks.
So it's going to reduce the timeline for the project.
So I can get the schedule to you today.
I know my contractor is supposed to be submitting it to me.
Just pick a year.
2025.
Thank you.
Yes.
All right.
Is that everybody?
All right.
Any motion?
I'll move.
Do we approve?
We have a motion?
Second.
All those in favor, please say aye.
Aye.
Any opposed?
Sign the same.
This is unanimously.
That is the consent agenda.
All right.
Now we are moving on to item three, items for individual consideration with the first item
A, PUB 25-058, the minutes from March 24th.
Anybody got any changes, comments, adjustments?
No.
I guess we need to entertain a motion for that as well.
To approve.
Move approval.
We have a motion.
Oh, I said move.
We have a motion.
Oh, okay.
I'm sorry.
I was thinking of a motion.
Second.
Any second?
All those in favor, please say aye.
Aye.
Any opposed?
Sign the same.
Second.
All those in favor, please sign the same.
Item three B, consider recommending approval of a resolution of the City Council of the
City of Denton, approving the sale of certain transmission system assets by the TMPA.
Mr. Chair, members of the board, Tony Puente, the ME General Manager, appreciate the time
today.
Going to go through just a little bit of background of what TMPA is.
For those of you that might not be familiar with this agency, so TMPA is a joint powers
agency that's owned by Denton, Bryan, Greenville, Garland.
The chair, Mr. Cheek, is one of our appointed members.
The other member is ...
Jesse Davis.
I'll have to do a blank on that.
So TMPA was created back in 1975.
The purpose was generation and sale or exchange of electric energy or the provision of wholesale
transmission service.
All the generation assets, previously known as Gibbons Creek steam electric station, were
sold back in January of 2021, so TMPA no longer is a generation agency.
By law, they can still be a generation agency, but currently they don't own anything.
Still own a little bit of mine property, about 723 acres remain of the original 11,000 acres,
and that is currently being marketed for sale.
A lot of slow movement on that, but we're hoping that that'll be sold sometime this
year.
And then transmission assets is really what remains and what's the value that's there.
There is a joint operating agreement that does call for the potential unbundling of
those assets.
As of now, that still hasn't been done.
We continue to kind of work through that process, a lot of different factors on why we may or
may not want to move forward with that, but just wanted to give you some background on
the agency itself.
So a little bit of background here on this transmission asset sale.
So Brian and TMPA engaged in some conversations about some assets where there was some commingling
of ownership, made the operational maintenance and regulatory compliance of those assets
quite difficult when you think about a substation or a transmission line, who handles what,
when is it done.
So really that really was the impetus of trying to get these assets kind of broken out.
And so the recommendation here that the board considered and that you will consider obviously
the council as well, is that Brian would take over and own assets that have a net book value
about $3.2 million in exchange for that.
And that is the only item that's coming to you today that will go to the council.
The other side of this transaction is that TMPA would then take over from Brian assets
that total $7 million.
So I think at the end of the day it's a good deal for TMPA, I think it's a good deal for
the city of Denton, and that now we're gonna own 21.3% of far more assets than we did previously.
So per the joint operating agreement that was effective January 1st, 2016, any sale
of assets in excess of $500,000 of book value, net book value on a fiscal year have to come
back to the member cities for approval.
And then staff recommends that you approve today's resolution to go to council in next
couple of weeks.
So with that, happy to answer any questions.
>> This one comment, this was a somewhat of a really nice agreement between the cities.
It's not always been that way.
If you'd asked me six months ago would this have happened, I would have said, maybe not.
Anyway, the cities are getting along pretty well.
I'm not saying anything I need to go into executive session for.
>> All right, that's all I got.
>> I had a question.
>> So not directly related to this asset sale, but for TMPA and city of Denton, so as you
said, TMPA will have $7 million more assets, or I guess the net $5 million, whatever that
net total increase is, which they receive transmission cost of service revenue from.
Does the TMPA T cost, does TMPA receive that and then kind of pay dividends out to the
four cities, or does Denton get direct credit for some amount of T costs?
>> No, so everything flows through TMPA.
TMPA has a rate of return that's a little bit over 12%, just for your memory, our current
rate of return is 6.21%, so certainly a little bit better percent.
And then whatever net revenues after they deduct the, primarily the debt that's issued
on transmission, but also some personnel costs, we get 21%, 21.3% of the remaining net revenues.
And we get that on an annual basis, amounts to about $2 million a year in revenue that
we get.
>> Okay, thank you.
>> Yeah.
>> So does having access to this additional transmission help us stabilize our load management
within DME?
>> Yeah, so certainly the largest asset that comes through the city of Denton and the only
one this size is a 345 KV line from Roanoke that comes through the, I think, the northwest
side of town.
So that is the only, or the largest line that we have, so certainly, yeah, I'm not gonna
describe it as a lifeline, but certainly a very large asset for us that does provide
a lot of power to the city of Denton.
>> So we would not like TMPA to go away?
>> Only if we get to own that 345 line.
>> Okay.
Thank you.
Susan?
>> No.
>> Oh, okay.
All right.
>> No, I don't believe there's, is there action?
>> Yeah, we need to get out of there.
>> All right.
>> I move we recommend adoption of this ordinance to city council.
>> We have a motion.
>> Aye.
>> We have a second for Mr. Rayner.
All those in favor, please say aye.
>> Aye.
>> Any opposed, sign the sign.
Passes unanimously.
Item 3C.
This is a contract with Mountain Cascade of Texas for wastewater and water utilities,
support of 35 and 1173.
>> Good morning, Sean Messick with Capital Projects.
So I have a construction contract for Milan Creek Grabby Sewer and Lift Station.
All right, so the scope is water line, wastewater relocation and abandonment, new lift station
and abandonment.
This is in support of the TxDOT I-35 widening.
It is partially TxDOT reimbursable.
There's a small bit, a water line that has to be relocated and abandoned as well.
All right, so this is an IFB under the pre-qualified list, Mountain Cascade and SJ Lewis were the
two that bid on this.
Low bid is 15 point, almost 15.3 million.
So Mountain Cascade is the selectee.
Design, so the design was completed in December.
A lot of this has been delayed because of the easements acquiring those.
Notice per seed will be quarter two of this year and construction completion quarter four
of 26.
So staff recommends approval to Mountain Cascade for 15.2 and some change with a contingency
of 763,000, some change for an NTE of 16 million.
Any questions?
So does this, so a few questions.
The map shows like Fort Worth Drive area, but this is all way up off 288, north of 288.
Correct, this is from 288 up to Ganser Road, correct.
That was not updated until after it already got approved in Legistar.
Okay, and then all of the work on that 700 feet of abandonment and all that, all that
is up north of 288?
It's at the 77, most of it is at 77.
We have a small portion that goes from 77 to 288, but everything is north of 77 up to
Ganser Road.
Okay, and this is the extension, we've approved other projects building the line along 77,
I believe, right?
Correct.
To handle the future growth out there.
Is the lift station included in TxDOT reimbursement or is this just in preparation for the lift
station that we will put in?
It's a portion.
So we do have the TA lift station that is on the opposite side of 35 at 77, so we are
putting a new one in.
So again, so part of the reimbursement portion for this is we're still working with TxDOT
on how much of the lift station is actually going to be reimbursed, but a good portion
of that actually is going to be reimbursed.
Okay, and in the meantime we're upsizing to substantially larger to support planned development
up there.
Yeah.
Thank you.
Okay.
Was that on?
Okay.
Well, and again, we'll entertain a motion for item three C. We have a motion for Mr.
Taylor.
Second.
Okay.
All those in favor, please say aye.
Aye.
Any opposed?
Sign the same.
That says unanimously.
Item three D, PUB 25-052.
What are you buying?
Kirby Smith, buy board cooperative.
Okay.
Purchase, repairs, and rental of construction equipment.
Good morning.
Tom Grammer, director of facilities and fleet.
I'm here to propose a cooperative contract with Kirby Smith for the construction equipment
purchase, repair, and rental for Komatsu branded equipment.
City and fleet services department purchases, repairs, and maintains a various type of equipment,
and it's used by several departments within the city.
This equipment is used for moving bulk materials, street grading, and excavation of job sites.
The proposed contract allows us to purchase and repair this equipment and utilize the
outside contract resources for the specialty diagnostics and repair of this specialty equipment.
All these vehicle acquisitions will be proposed to the city's budgeting process, and we are
not obligated to spend the full NTE on this contract.
Here our contract estimates broke down by fiscal year of anticipated needs plus acquisitions
by department, and then the fund that's supporting these acquisitions.
An asset acquisition example is this 2025 Komatsu articulating dump truck that's utilized
by Solid Waste.
You can see that just one addition would be over a million dollars.
Staff recommends approval of a one-year with four-year additional one-year extensions,
and a total of five years not to exceed the amount with Kirby Smith machinery for $7,749,000.
Any questions?
I'm curious.
So the piece of equipment costs $1.3 million, ballpark, and I thought cars were expensive.
So the total of this contract includes the service to maintain this during the five-year
period?
Yes, sir.
Okay.
So it's costing us, I guess, a million and a quarter a year to operate this thing?
This is for all pieces of Komatsu branded equipment within the city, so this is just
an example of one purchase.
Okay, I'm sorry.
This is the addition, and then there's all the other service for all the rolling stock
you currently have.
Correct.
Okay.
Yes, and we use that example to highlight the cost of the contract.
This year there was proposed two of these replacements that are needed.
Just in that purchase alone would be $2.5 million.
So this is an example of why this contract is a little heavy towards the acquisitions
and replacements.
Thank you.
Cost of the machinery.
Question.
With this equipment, when you're talking about servicing, will it be serviced at the
new expanded machinery shop that we have at the landfill?
Is that where it will be serviced and such?
Yeah, absolutely.
Depending on the repair type, there's three options.
The unit can be brought to the expanded fleet services shop.
It can be worked on in the field, or it can be transported to the manufacturer.
Depending on the degree of the repair needed will determine where the repair will happen.
I know we had quite a bit of conversation as to who would go there machinery-wise and
how often.
I know we'd asked and how quickly it could be done, but that was the forethought of this
by having that expansion?
Yes, sir.
Thank you.
There doesn't appear to be any more questions, and we'll entertain a motion for Item 3D.
Do we have a motion?
Second.
We have a second.
Did you get that, Erin and Thomas?
Okay.
All those in favor, please say aye.
Aye.
Any opposed?
Sign the same.
All right.
Management reports.
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, members of the board, we have a few items here for you.
The first one is a memo.
I think Mr. Rabak had a question about a change order sent for us here, so if you have any
follow-up questions on that, he'd be happy to get up here and talk through that.
Mr. Rabak?
I was just curious if there was a little bit more explanation than just dollar amount change
order.
That's all.
Good morning, Scott Fettig, Senior Project Manager with Capital Projects.
Sure.
It was during construction on some of the streets listed, like Sycamore and mostly Austin
and Walnut, we found old sewer lines that were shallow or not identified during design,
and it was determined that those need to be replaced, definitely aging infrastructure.
We didn't want to leave on new roadways.
So you found changed conditions during construction?
Sure.
Correct.
Water lines that we weren't expecting to be there, that were old, need to be replaced,
things like that.
So it was additional infrastructure that we found during construction that needed to be
upgraded and improved.
Did I miss something in the line item and the agenda?
Because it appeared that there was no description of what you've just told us about.
Is there some way to add a brief description of the reason for the change order?
Sure.
Yeah, we can definitely go in more descriptive of a little more detail of what that is.
I think the general idea was not to confuse or overwhelm with information, but definitely
can get a little more detailed with, you know, of why.
I'm not asking for as much detail as we just got in the last presentation, but just some
brief overview of, you know, we need to spend an additional $3.21 million.
There must be a reason for that.
Right.
Found changed conditions.
We had more work to do.
Just some idea.
Sure.
I'll be helpful for the future.
Yep.
Absolutely.
Yep.
Mr. Chair.
So I have a question.
Sure.
When you run into situations like that with the old sewer lines, water lines, you replacing
them, do you keep them in the same level they are or do you share with me how you work
on that?
Sure.
When you run into these old things?
Sure.
Good question.
So specifically, like on Myrtle, it was, like you said, it was, we found it to be very shallow.
I'm going to be, you know, within where we're treating the subgrade that are underneath.
So, with that, yes, we lower them down to get away from any future work that might take
place or within the subgrade, get them out, you know, get them low enough to be out of
the way for any kind of road work or anything like that in the future.
And water lines the same way?
Same way.
Yes.
Size and such.
Yep.
And so that's the reason for the extra cost as well because you're lowering, I mean, obviously,
there's expense for making it more modern as to the rest of your new items.
Sure.
Okay.
Yes, sir.
Thank you.
Yep.
Thank you.
So, on the future, again, item, no changes to the previously made to you, and then on
the new business action item, we did have one item that we added from the last meeting,
which was a request for a contamination map on the information that Solid Waste presented
previously.
So, we have that.
We'll get that to you for the next meeting.
But with that, happy to answer any questions or if there's anything else you'd like to
include.
Ms. Parker.
Mr. Chair, I will be gone all of May and I will submit my absence request.
Okay.
Be back in June, though.
Granted.
Right in front, right in time for budgets.
All right.
Well, it's good you'll be back in June because I'm going to be gone.
All right.
Okay.
All hands on deck.
Okay.
Good man.
All right.
I believe that's all we have.
No work session?
Huh?
I move we adjourn.
Okay.
We have a motion to adjourn.
Give a second.
All those in favor, please say aye.
Aye.
We are adjourned.