Good morning, and welcome to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Denton Public Utility
Board.
Today is Monday, December 15, and it is 9.03 a.m.
Our first item on our agenda is presentations from members of the public.
Are there any presentations?
Seeing none, we will move on to the consent agenda.
Would any member like to pull an item for discussion?
Chair would entertain a motion for approval of the consent agenda.
Mr. Newquist moved, I think Susan seconds.
We have a motion and a second, all in favor say aye.
Motion carries unanimously.
Moving on to items for individual consideration, our first item for individual consideration
is approval of the October 27th minutes.
We have a motion for approval and a second.
All in favor say aye.
Motion carries unanimously.
Next item is approval of the November 17th minutes.
I think it was declaring that we did not have quorum.
We have a motion from Mr. Rayner, second from Mr. Rybeck.
All in favor say aye.
Motion passes unanimously.
Our next item for individual consideration, I believe we have a discussion on competitive
matters that will happen in closed session on this item so we will delay item C regarding
TCRF large load costs until after we go to closed session after the work session.
So moving on to item D for individual consideration, we have a recommending adoption of an ordinance
for the City of Denton with integrated power for transmission line construction and maintenance
for $67,990,000.
>> Good morning.
Mark Zimmer, DME engineering.
For your consideration this morning is a contract for electric transmission line construction
services.
DME has many CIP projects that require transmission line construction services which include constructing
transmission foundation, erecting steel towers, installing transmission conductor.
This contract will be used for these services also used for emergency services.
On this slide is listing of the CIP projects used to develop the contract amount for the
next five years.
These projects are grouped by DME, TMPA, and TxDOT.
The costs for the projects listed as DME will be recovered through the TCO system.
The projects listed as TMPA and TxDOT will be reimbursable by those agencies.
DME developed an RFP to solicit for these services and three proposals were received.
The proposals were evaluated for safety, quality, schedule, and price.
Integrated power evaluated the highest.
Based on the results of the RFP, integrated power company received the highest evaluated
score and lowest overall price.
Staff recommends approval of an agreement with integrated power company for transmission
line construction services in an amount not to exceed $67,990.
As a reminder DME is not obligated to spend any amount under this contract and the majority
of this total will be recoverable through TCO or through reimbursable measures.
Excuse me, you mentioned the majority would be recovered.
Do you have kind of a broad range of percentage of what that would be?
The piece that won't be recoverable is any distribution cost associated with this.
In some cases there's distribution installed on these transmission lines and so any work
for that won't be recoverable, but everything else will.
It's probably like a 90/10 split, something like that.
I'm sorry, say again?
90/10, 90%, 90%.
That's very high.
Thank you.
Yes, sir.
Could you go back to the project slide, slide I think three?
So obviously these numbers add up to that $67 million.
In the next five years, in the last five years we've seen significant inflation in capital
costs.
Yes, sir.
Do these numbers include any kind of expected increase in cost for year four, year five?
They do, yes sir, and the contract also allows for the escalation that we'll work through
with the purchasing department if that comes up.
Is there any other questions on the audit?
On the cost proposal, there's a big difference in the pricing.
Are we concerned about that at all?
Not typically.
The two other proposals that we received are very large companies and we typically see
just large prices from those.
Senator would entertain a motion for approval and a second.
All in favor say aye.
Any opposed, sign the same.
Motion carries unanimously.
Our next order of business is consider recommending adoption of an ordinance with the City of
Denton and Stewart C. Irby Company for the purchase of high voltage circuit breakers
for $22,257,824.
Yes sir, very consideration as a multi-year contract for purchase of high voltage circuit
breakers for DME CIP projects.
High voltage circuit breakers are used in all DME substations to interrupt the flow of fault
current typically caused by lightning, lightning strikes on power lines, animals, failed equipment,
and other causes.
Circuit breakers are required equipment in our substations.
They limit the damage caused by fault current or needed to isolate equipment for outages
and maintenance purposes.
This slide shows typical lead times of two to four years for this type of equipment for
domestically manufactured high voltage circuit breakers.
This kind of indicates the level of planning that's required to complete our projects on
time and that's why this slide is being included.
DME developed an RFP to solicit a unit cost contract to purchase high voltage circuit
breakers from two domestic manufacturers.
Two proposals were received and Stewart Irby Company was evaluated the highest mainly due
to cost.
On this slide is a listing of the types of circuit breakers and maximum quantities that
DME plans to purchase under this contract and of course this contract doesn't require
any minimum purchase, purchase orders will be issued as as needed for each project.
Staff recommends approval and agreement with Stewart Irby for the purchase of high voltage
circuit breakers and not to exceed amount of $22,257,824.
Question, have we used them before?
Yes sir.
And what is the history with that?
How often do we, I know you said two to four year lead so are they a long standing company
we've used for the past ten years, fifteen, whatever?
Yes sir.
We've purchased, Stewart Irby is the distributor and the manufacturer is Siemens.
We've used Siemens breakers for as far as I know at least 20 years.
Good quality breakers made in Mississippi I believe.
So yes, haven't had any issues with them.
Thank you.
Yes sir.
I'm curious the total quantity of like 50 or so total breakers are those, is that all
new expansion or does that include replacement of end of service equipment?
It's all new, yeah.
So most of the circuit breakers in our system are less than 20 years old now because we've
done so many projects over the last 20 years.
The existing circuit breakers are fairly new and don't need to be replaced.
So this is all kind of all new transmission system.
That's right.
Yes sir.
Thank you.
Any further questions?
Just personal curiosity question, when you showed the cost of the different types of
breakers you could go back to that.
I noticed that the 345 kV circuit breakers were worth about three times as much as the
138 kV.
So I'm just curious, I realize it's much higher voltage potential.
So is there something different about those breakers that makes them more expensive?
They're physically very large breakers.
And also a difference is the 138 kV breakers are assembled together in one assembly.
These 345 kV breakers are three individual separate assemblies.
Are these all gas filled breakers?
They are SF6 gas filled breakers.
Thank you.
Any other questions?
We have a motion for approval and a second from Mr. Ryback.
All in favor say aye.
Aye.
Any opposed?
Sign the same.
The motion carries unanimously.
And now we move on to management reports.
Good morning Chair and PB members.
You have in your packet several memos.
I'm here to entertain we have staff here if you have any questions regarding those memorandums.
I don't have a question, but I'm having a little trouble hearing you.
I wondered if you could speak.
Is that better?
A little better.
Thank you.
All right.
I'll get a little closer.
I'm soft spoken.
So no questions on the memos.
The only thing I have for the future PB items is I guess on January 12th we're going to
receive motions and hold elections for the Chair and Vice Chair and Secretary positions.
That's on the schedule.
I did have a question on the first item.
So I don't recall having seen one of these before, where everything was just moved directly
to the council.
I'm curious if this is something that is normal procedure or out of the ordinary?
That we move the items directly to council?
Is that what you're asking?
Yes.
Yeah, the PUB there wasn't a quorum and we needed we had deadlines that we had to meet.
So we took the items all to council for approval and then we were coming back to update the
board on the results of that.
Okay.
I was just curious.
I just don't remember seeing one of these before.
It happens very rarely.
We have done it in the past when I was chair.
We did it a couple of times and it was the same thing because we didn't have a quorum
and they can't hold up buying stuff.
I understand the mechanics of it.
I was just curious.
I hadn't recalled seeing one of these on my time on the board.
I believe we had one over the holidays last year too where we didn't have meetings because
of the holiday schedule and then there were some urgent things that had to be purchased
by December 31st.
That's correct.
If there are no further questions on management reports, we can move on to our work session.
Leave a report and hold a discussion regarding the updates to the City of Denton Design Criteria
Manual.
Good morning.
I'm Mike Linder, a drainage engineer and I'm here to speak with you about some proposed
updates to the City of Denton Design Criteria Manual.
Just a brief overview of what we're going to cover today.
We're going to look at our public outreach plan, go over some background of what the
design criteria manuals are, how they're used within the city, we'll highlight some of the
more significant updates from each section of the manual and discuss our next steps.
Now the design criteria manual is an extremely technical document and it touches on a wide
variety of topics so we do have our subject matter experts here on hand to answer any
questions that you may have that I may not be able to address.
So our public outreach plan, as you can see, it's fairly extensive just due to the wide
variety of projects, both city capital projects and private development projects that are
impacted by this document.
It's always a big push to get the information out there and solicit any comments or feedback.
We kick this off in September by letting the development community, putting them on notice
that these updates were coming, published a draft of the proposed updates online in October
and we give various presentations both to the development community and other professional
organizations and bring it before the city, before the various boards and commissions.
We're currently anticipating a public hearing mid-January with an effective date of February
1st, 2026.
Some background on kind of how we do this, the process of updating the manuals.
Again, since this is a really technical document that touches on a lot of different departments,
we bring those subject matter experts together to review the document and review all the
comments that have been collected since the previous updates both from internal stakeholders
and people outside of the organization and create an initial internal draft of that document
that we then work with the larger group, send it out to all the department heads for them
to disseminate to their staff, have a series of in-person meetings to review all the changes,
make sure everybody's on board, that there's no conflicts before we arrive at a final internal
draft that's then posted online, shared with the public, brought before the various boards
and commissions, again, with ultimate adoption anticipated in February 1st.
So just some context on kind of what this manual is, how it's used in the city.
The city actually has a number of governing documents, and there's an established hierarchy
to these.
Honestly, probably the top governing document that's not published on this slide would be
the 2040 comprehensive plan that's kind of the overall guiding the direction of the city
and the aspirations of the direction the city wants to go.
Underneath that is the debt and development code, which lays out policies and procedures
for zoning and subdivision regulations.
It's a planning level document.
Below that is the design criteria manual, what we're discussing today, which is a technical
engineering resource that lays out the appropriate design methodologies to be used for public
infrastructure.
Underneath that are the construction specifications, which discuss appropriate construction methodologies,
how to actually build what's been designed, and then lastly we have the standard details,
which actually provide detailed depictions of infrastructure to be constructed.
So these all touch on projects at a different point in their life cycle, and they all kind
of work together.
So we'll cover some of the more significant updates from the different sections in the
manual.
Solid waste, we only had one significant update, and that was some additional guidance on the
design of side load enclosures, just for sites that have particular constraints and don't
allow for a more typical front load enclosure.
On the storm water section we're proposing to allow a new pipe material, polypropylene.
Currently the only approved pipe material in the storm water system is reinforced concrete,
and we've received a lot of questions and comments for several years on why are no alternate
materials allowed.
City staff conducted an investigation over approximately a year where we met with various
vendors, coordinated with other cities, spoke with their staff, kind of got feedback from
them and their experiences, visited multiple construction sites in the area, saw other
materials being used, and we're confident that polypropylene has appropriate applications
throughout the city and will help lower prices.
So we're proposing that that be a new allowed material.
We're also proposing to require that larger developments, disturbing greater than an acre,
remove a majority of suspended sediment from the storm water before it leaves their site.
This is currently included in the manual just as a recommendation.
We're proposing to make it a requirement.
That offers several benefits, one, if that sediment is removed on site before it enters
the public system, that's not pushing the cost of cleaning once that sediment settles
out in our culverts, our pipes, our channels.
It doesn't become -- it doesn't add to the public maintenance cost.
There's also regulatory pressures.
This is currently a requirement from the EPA in other states.
We have a storm water discharge permit, our MS4 permit.
We fully expect that that requirement will come to Texas in the future.
So it's coming to us one way or another, and this allows us to get ahead of it and get
the development community used to these practices.
We also believe it will result in smaller overall detention ponds by kind of separating
out that flood control from the water treatment aspect of it and result in more developable
land for developments.
>> Excuse me, I have a question before you move on.
>> Absolutely.
>> Do you have a polypropylene pipe in place of the concrete drainage piping?
Does it have the strength to hold up the ground over it?
>> It does.
It is a rigid material, and there was some apprehension among staff because of experiences
in the past with HDPE pipe, but polypropylene is much more rigid than HDPE, does have a
structural component to it.
There's other advantages to it as well.
>> Well, I've seen them used many times on kind of drive-outs from ranch property.
You know, there's a gate on cover over the drain line there, and they just use the concrete
piping essentially to hold that up and get the drainage through.
Will the polypropylene do that as well, or would they be forced to put in a culvert,
or how are they going to do that?
>> The specifications would offer more detail on where it's appropriate to use.
Similar to a concrete pipe, there's going to be, you know, minimum cover and higher
class of the pipe based on that cover and anticipated loads, so if there's, you know,
very little cover or they're just dumping some flex space over it for something like
a driveway, then it may not be appropriate in that circumstance, but we're proposing
to open it up for cases where it would be appropriate to use.
>> So you're not recommending it in all cases, just most?
>> No.
Yeah, absolutely.
It wouldn't be a one for one.
It would still have to, you know, dependent on the manufacturer's recommendations and
the city specifications on when it would be appropriate to use.
>> Thank you.
>> Absolutely.
On the transportation section of the manual, we've added or proposing to add a new roadway
classification, the major collector also providing some additional guidance in school areas.
We're proposing to remove the bike ped traffic impact analysis section from the manual.
Not that this isn't being evaluated or looked at anymore.
There's kind of been a separate process of TIA scoping meetings that have happened with
or has been developed where staff works with the developers on a much more individual basis
where they look at what's appropriate for that site.
So not painting with as broad of a brush as putting in the criteria manual and necessarily
a blanket requirement so that's being looked at through a separate process.
Also offered some updates on allowable traffic calming measures and some updates to the on
street parking requirements.
There's some large changes in the structure of the water/wastewater manual, kind of just
reorganizing the information to make it more digestible, improve readability and hopefully
result in better comprehension from developers and people that are referencing the manual.
On the requirements, we're proposing to require geotechnical studies and cathodic protection
where appropriate.
This is just due to corrosive soils that we have in the area that if they're not identified
can significantly reduce the lifespan of metal pipe, cast iron pipe.
So doing these geotechnical investigations helps us identify if those soils are present
and if they are require cathodic protection to extend the life of that asset.
We're also proposing some updates to lift station requirements to result in better site
planning for those.
On the street light section, we've added a new style of poll as well as clarified the
process by which people can request street lighting be removed or added in a particular
area.
A new section that we're proposing to add under this manual speaks specifically to environmentally
sensitive areas.
This is kind of a consolidation of institutional knowledge that staff provides this guidance
to developers when they come in, but adding this section will help applicants understand
how to identify these areas and how to design for them.
Next steps.
Later this week we're going to be giving a similar presentation to mobility committee.
We've got a public hearing scheduled for mid January and I anticipated effective date of
February 1, 2026 and I'll stand for any questions.
Could you go back to page 8 for me?
Absolutely.
I'm intrigued with traffic calming.
Is that going to be gas injected into cars to keep people happy or is it going to be
shooting out tires?
What is your suggestion on that?
So traffic calming, the updates clarify the allowed measures.
We currently don't allow any vertical traffic calming measures, so things like speed bumps
because of the effect it has on emergency response vehicles, slowing response time,
damaging equipment.
But we do allow for horizontal traffic calming, so things like chicanes would be an example
of that.
So it has nothing to do with stacking traffic or anything of that nature?
No, it's just to control speeds, to encourage driver attentiveness and to have them driving
at appropriate speed in an area.
Great.
Could we go to page 9?
Yes, sir.
May I continue?
I'm just asking, at one time when we pulled up to look at wastewater and water on our
maps and such, they had measurements, they showed where the pipes were and such.
That's no longer a process, it's being practiced, is that correct?
I believe that has been removed from our public facing maps for security reasons.
Yes, I was intrigued with the security reasons for that to be removed from the public view.
I've had many people inquire about it and I thought this might be an opportune time
to at least say that I asked the question.
Absolutely, and I apologize, I'm afraid I can't speak to that.
I believe that's a decision that's made by the individual utilities.
Yes, it was made by the individual utility and we also created a layer for the development
community to where they can put in a request.
What was happening is that our entire distribution and collection system was exposed externally
and we view that as a vulnerability when we do our hazard and vulnerability assessments.
So in order to control that, we removed it from being publicly facing and created a mechanism
for the developers to engage with our development services team to get the information that they require.
>> And so is that only during the pre-design time period or is there an expense, a cost to get that?
>> No, there's no cost to get it.
And it's for any information, what we would deem as sensitive information regarding our distribution and collection systems.
So it's just a different form to request and then it can be given in a timely manner without having to have an additional step taken to.
>> That's correct, and they have to demonstrate the need.
So if it's a development, here's a vacant parcel, I'm going to develop this, I need to know what's in the area.
What's happening is that a developer would come in and they would need information for that specific area and
they would get an entire quarter section of the system and that's a vulnerability for us.
>> Thank you.
We'll go to page 10.
On the lighting, you made a comment about with moving lighting, such as in an established area.
So if we're in a northeast part of town, we need some new lighting.
Will it be similar to the style be similar as existing or will they be brand new Cobra heads?
I'll use that as an example.
>> I'm going to step aside for that one.
>> Aaron Benyon, Denton Municipal Electric.
>> So if I understand your question, you're talking about general area lighting?
>> Street lighting, yes.
>> Okay.
So the street light requests right now come from several different avenues.
I guess I would say it could be direct emails, 311 or the engaged Denton tickets.
And so what we do is we evaluate them based on the engineering criteria that's been set forth.
If it meets the national and adopted standards, then there's no technical need for additional street lighting.
And we get a lot of that.
People say, hey, it's really dark right here and we have to go and look, does it actually meet the standards or does it not?
If it's a general area, a long section of a street, that will probably be coordinated with the city's capital improvement projects and teams.
Most of what we will address is residential lighting.
>> That's what I'm referring to, yes.
>> Yeah, and so it's just going to be based on, does it meet the adopted standards?
Once we've evaluated it, then we put it into a queue and
we rank them based on the engineering need that's been identified.
As well as, is this a high crime area?
Are there other additional factors that we need to add to it?
And then based on that, we have a set budget.
And we just work our way down through the list, the highest priorities down to the lower priorities.
>> I appreciate that.
I guess what I should have said on if replacement of lights are addition, will the cosmetics be similar to the existing or will it not?
>> They are very similar.
So basically, the new pole that was added matches the,
we added about four years ago, residential dark gray kind of shoebox, we call it the shoebox.
It's another Cobra head style light.
We needed a new pole for the thoroughfares that was taller.
And so this is a dark gray metal pole that matches that.
>> Okay, thank you.
>> Any more questions?
I'm curious, what would be an example of a major collector?
I know that we have some larger collectors.
I'm just curious, so we can picture it in our minds.
Is Malone a major collector?
>> Good morning, this is Rakibul Alam, I'm the principal transportation planner working at the transportation division.
So the major collector, very new concept is it is basically to facilitate the urban areas.
So generally, the collector has 65 feet right of way and two lane road.
And it has higher connectivity, like the driveway spacing on the collector is 100 feet.
On the other hand, the arterial has 110 feet right of way, four lane road.
The driveway spacing is more, like 150 feet.
So in the urban areas, we're looking something like, because in those areas,
there will be more traffic, at the same time there will be more pedestrian movement.
So we are trying to get something, some kind of hybrid concept so that we can accommodate both.
So the major collector will have the similar right of way like the arterial, 110 feet.
But the connectivity will be similar to the collector, like 100 feet.
And it will have both bike pad facilities in both sides.
So we are, at this point, only one road is considered as a major collector.
And we're improving it as like the major collector, the Windsor Road.
So in that case, it will have bike lane, pedestrian sidewalk, and
it will have both, it will serve both bike on the vehicle and the pedestrian.
So in the future, based on some specific areas, we are going to implement that classification.
>> Okay, that makes sense.
Yeah, so Windsor is an example, and I keep, in your description I was thinking of Malone,
because it is three or four lanes, but it is a collector and it has schools and
churches and such on it, so lots of bike and pedestrian traffic.
>> Yeah, the Windsor Road connection that will pass the future
Loop 288 and US 288 connector, that segment will be the major collector.
>> Okay.
>> So you're saying then with this major connector, it will still be the right of way.
Did you say, still be the right of way, the 110 of the arterial?
>> Yeah, this right of way will be similar to the 110 of the arterial.
>> And with that, you're going to be adding additional lanes for
pedestrian bikes, sidewalk, all that's fitting in.
So are we thinning the lanes, or how do you put more into that 110?
>> So structure, it has three options, basically, major collector.
Generally, any rotor classification, we fix the number of the lanes.
But in the major collectors, we have two-lane concept, we have three-lane concept, we have four-lane concept.
So based on the locality, we are going to implement which will be four-lane road, will be three-lane road, or will be two-lane road.
But we're going to ensure that there will be bike lane, and there will be sidewalk on both sides.
>> So you might understand my question.
I can see how you could fit that into a two-lane or four-lane, but you get a six-lane, I'm intrigued.
Am I missing that?
>> Well, six-lane becomes, I think, an arterial.
An arterial is what we intend.
>> That's what I'm curious, so it changes its name then, or classification, is that what they're doing?
>> Yeah, I think there's going to be three-
>> Three different options under the major collector.
>> Okay, all right.
>> I just had to hear it from you, I feel better.
>> Sorry. >> Okay, good, thank you.
Any further questions on the design criteria manuals?
>> Thank you.
>> I will comment, I like the changes to require the iSwim sedimentation.
The iSwim is written by NCTCOG and maintained locally, and
tends to be forward thinking, low long-term costs, low impact, all of those things.
And so I think it's good that we're kind of moving to match the rest of the Metroplex in those requirements.
And if there are no, do we need to make a recommendation, or is this just an update?
>> This is just an informational update, an opportunity to provide feedback and ask questions.
>> Okay, I think we have all our, is there any more feedback we'd like to give?
>> Thank you.
>> And now, at 9.38 AM,
the Public Utilities Board will convene into a closed meeting to deliberate
on items set forth in the agenda regarding power utilities, competitive matters.
Under Texas Government Code, section 551.086.
Well, welcome back to the Public Utilities Board meeting.
It is at 9.58, we reconvene from closed session, and no official action was taken.
We will now move on to PUB 25-222,
item C on our individual consideration agenda, recommending adoption of an ordinance,
setting TCRF recovery factors, and add a rate for
TCRF large load for transmission cost recovery factor for
customers with a point of delivery that meets or exceeds 20 megawatts.
>> Good morning, PUB, my name is Melissa Cuevas with DME.
And today we have our fourth quarter review for
energy cost adjustment and our transmission cost recovery factor.
Now this presentation is just informative, there's no action required.
We have our energy cost adjustment for our native load set at 0.0462 cents,
no changes recommended.
Our large load ECA is set at 0.0577 cents per KWH, no changes recommended there.
And then our transmission cost recovery factor rates are shown on the screen and
no changes are recommended.
So this shows our balance forecast for our native load ECA.
As long as we maintain that rate of 0.0462 cents,
we'll have a balance of $19.6 million by September of 2026.
And our TCRF forecasted account balance, as long as we maintain that same rate,
it'll be 1.8 million by September of 26.
So again, no recommended changes for this.
Are there any questions?
>> Any questions?
Could you return to the TCRF slide?
>> Yeah.
>> And the reason we're starting at that negative 3.7 million is that we just
made all of our TCRF payments at the beginning of the fiscal year?
>> Correct, yes, sir.
>> And so next year we'll do the same thing, we'll have about a million, six or
seven. >> Yes.
>> Go to negative balance.
>> That's correct.
>> And is the goal to keep that going negative every year, or
is it to slowly raise that to where we have the TCRF total in fund balance?
>> I don't think we're needing to maintain a balance like we are for the ECA,
that TCRF, we have that amount.
And it's just kind of divided over 12 months where we're paying that down.
>> Cuz I guess it's a very fixed rate.
We know exactly what it's gonna cost for the year, no risk there.
>> Yes, sir.
>> Okay, thank you.
If there are no further questions, the Chair would entertain a motion.
>> There's no action.
>> Yeah, no action, and this is just an informative presentation.
>> Okay, all right, because we're not changing the rates.
>> Correct, yes, sir, thank you.
>> All right, sorry, with that, the PUB is adjourned.