Okay, it is nine o'clock.
We do have a quorum, so let's call the meeting to order.
Billy Cheek is out sick, so he will not be joining us.
The first item is a work session to receive a report and hold a discussion and give staff
direction regarding the whitetail wolf ridge physical delivery of energy.
The person who is going to give that presentation is stuck in traffic, so we're going to put
that as the last item of the agenda, so we'll go into the consent agenda.
Does any board member wish to pull one of the items under the consent agenda?
I just have a real quick question on A.
Okay, so we'll pull A.
B.
And B.
And D.
Bravo and Delta.
Bravo Delta.
Alright, so then do we have a motion to approve item C and E?
So moved.
Move approval.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Aye.
Carries item A.
Good morning, Frank Pugsley, Water and Wastewater Utilities Director, here to answer any questions
you have on item A, which is the Northwest Booster Pump Station and Water Transmission
Main.
So it will be located on our property at the Riney Road Elevated Storage Tank.
We own a large rectangular track to land there.
So more or less North Lakes Park?
Yeah, it's close to there, just north of there, north and east a little bit, so it's north
of 77 on Riney Road there, right by our Elevated Storage Tank on that same property.
That's all I wanted to know.
Alright, do we have a motion to approve?
I move we approve.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Aye.
That one carries.
Item B. Bravo.
Good morning.
Frank Pugsley, Water and Wastewater Utilities Director, I'd like to answer any questions
on the TECSAT relocations along I-35.
Yeah, the question I have is of the $10.8 million anticipated for the whole project,
how much of that is reimbursable?
Virtually all of that will be reimbursable.
There is a little piece of engineering scope in the contract that's to help us with conflict
resolution on the other I-35 projects that are from basically 380 north to the county
line.
So under this particular project, those aren't going to be reimbursable, but eventually we
can get reimbursed on that subsequent TECSAT project.
So for this particular one, we have, I believe, over about 5,000 feet of transmission main.
That's really the lion's share of that $10 million and then various other smaller utilities.
A couple of crossings under 35, they were going to have to rebore and move the lines
to accommodate the relocations.
Same question for the engineering portion of this.
Engineering part is $922,000.
How much of that is reimbursable?
I think there's about $30,000 that we anticipate may or may not be reimbursable under this
current project.
And the part that's not reimbursable, that fits the budget of the city, is that true?
Yes.
Okay.
That's it.
Okay.
All right.
Do we have a motion to approve?
I move we approve.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Aye.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Okay, Mr. Nalty has arrived, so we'll go into work session.
Good morning, PUB members.
Terry Nalty, assistant general manager, DME.
Today we're going to talk a little bit about the Denton Renewable Resource Plan and one
specific aspect of the plan which deals with how we account for the renewable energy that
we procure to serve the load.
The timing of this is such that we have issued three RFPs for additional renewable resources.
These will be the last resources that we procure to achieve the 100 percent renewable goal
under the Denton Renewable Resource Plan.
So within the current portfolio of resources that we use to meet the renewable mandate,
we have a legacy contract that's called White Tail Wolf Ridge.
It is a wind energy resource.
It is located north of here.
The contract was entered into sometime in the 2014 timeframe.
It's a 30 megawatt contract for around-the-clock energy.
It is a physical delivery of that energy at the White Tail Bus.
It's the interconnection point between the White Tail Wolf Ridge asset and the ERCOT
transmission grid.
In 2016, the contract was amended to include an additional 30 megawatts of renewable energy
credit.
So the contract, as it's currently configured, it includes 30 megawatts of energy around-the-clock,
so every hour of every day, and then 60 megawatts of renewable energy credits for every hour
of every day.
So you can see it's 525,600 recs per year and 262,800 megawatts per year.
The contract does expire at the end of 2023.
As I said, it is a legacy contract, it's one of our more expensive renewable energy contracts.
The Denton Renewable Resource Plan, which was passed by Council, and this PUB reviewed
that extensively with consultants, the consultant is Energy Risk Consultants, and the actual
Denton Renewable Resource Plan is an amendment to the resolution that was passed, is actually
an attachment to the resolution that was passed in 2018.
In the final version, you can see there was a discussion, and some of the PUB members
may remember the discussion about White Tail.
In the Council session, it was discussed, and you can see that the consultant in the
final addendum included this statement, "Count White Tail as a renewable resource, no."
So currently, we are not counting it as a renewable resource.
So one of the reasons why I'm back to you today is to kind of remedy what was some false
information that was provided, some information that's more accurate on how renewable energy
credits work in the market, and what the physical delivery aspects of this contract make, and
ask for your consideration for a different treatment of this contract, and we've got
three different options.
One would be to keep it the way it is, which is we take no credit for those renewable energy
credits.
The second one is to utilize the same construct as we use for all the other resources, and
the third would be to count all of the renewable energy credits that we receive towards the
100% goal.
Let me talk about the physical output of the resource.
So as you can see, this is 24 months, and I apologize for the busyness of the slide,
but this shows for each hour during the 24 previous months, the output of the White Tail
resource.
The resource is actually capable of producing 110 megawatts.
We have contracted for 30 megawatts of energy.
And as you see, the blue bars represent what the physical output was of the asset during
each hour, and most hours you see that it's above the 30 megawatt line.
Here we see an hour where it was 20 megawatts, and here we see a period where the resource
was not running at all.
Now we see this information after the fact from ERCOT.
This is posted on the ERCOT website.
We can verify what the physical output of the asset was.
So 8% of these hours had been -- there was no wind output, 53% of the time the energy
from the facility is above the 30 megawatts.
And now I'd like to discuss how we do other resources.
So Santorita.
Yes, sir.
This might be a really silly question, but if it falls below 30 megawatt output, but
we're getting 30 megawatts -- Ed, could you get closer to your microphone,
please?
Oh, sorry.
But we're getting 30 megawatts every day.
Where does that 30 megawatts come from that was not generated by the wind farm?
So that's a great question.
So thanks.
Yeah.
Because it's not intuitive.
Our other resources, like Santorita, we get whatever the farm produces in each hour.
So some hours at zero, and we get zero.
Here we get 30, even though the resource may be at zero.
That's a contractual arrangement with the owner of the whitetail project.
And what happens is they purchase the energy from the market when the resource is less
than 30.
And they provide that to us at the same delivery point, and it would be at the same contract
price.
Does that answer your question?
Yeah, it does.
Thank you very much.
So the other piece is that they also sell the RECs, so the renewable energy credits, the
60 megawatts come to us from this facility.
And we actually have an account at ERCOT who administrates the REC program.
All these RECs are deposited into the DME account for that 60 megawatts.
So one of the second proposals, the second option that we discussed with you, we asked
for your input on, would be to count the lower of 30 megawatts or the actual output.
And what that would do is it would say every hour that we were running and the asset was
above 30 megawatts, we would count that 30, because physically they were delivered and
generated by the resource.
If it was below 30, like in this case here we had 20, we'd only count 20.
And here we'd count zero.
And we can look back over time and see exactly how this resource ran each hour of each day
to determine what the physical output was.
Before I go into the details of the impact here, I want to talk a little bit about what
a renewable energy credit is.
So a renewable energy credit is what's called an environmental attribute of energy that's
generated from a designated renewable energy resource.
Under state law it's administered by the Public Utility Commission of Texas, the program is,
and it's implemented through ERCOT.
In the original deregulation bill in Texas, the renewable, the retail energy providers,
the competitive retail energy providers, were required to achieve a certain percentage of
renewable energy in providing options for customers to choose from.
The mechanism to track the actual renewable component of that is a renewable energy credit.
A renewable energy credit can only be given to a renewable energy resource that physically
delivers that megawatt into the grid.
So if a REC, as we call them, renewable energy credit, is in someone's account, it can only
be there if a physical megawatt of renewable energy was generated, verified by the historical
operation of the facility.
So a REC in and of itself is proof positive that a megawatt of renewable energy was in
fact delivered to the Texas ERCOT grid.
So what is the accreditation impact?
You can see here without whitetail, here's the megawatt hours that are produced from
our renewable resources and what they represent.
We can see that for 1920 we're about 50 percent and because we have additional resources coming
online this summer, we'll be increasing that to about 71 percent for the -- I'm sorry,
for the -- 50 percent for the 1920 period and then we have additional resources coming
on as you can see.
Were we to include the renewables from whitetail in the manner that the second option is, which
is the lower of 30 megawatts or that physical output, you can see that we would increase
that percentage by about 10 percent.
What that means is because we don't currently include them, we're in the midst of doing
these RFPs, we'll have to procure additional energy and renewable resources to replace
those.
Now the RFPs are structured in a way that we can determine specifically what we need
and specify that to the bidders or procure that from the bidders as we get the bids in.
We estimate that for just the 30 megawatts with the REX, it's about $2.6 million of additional
cost that we would be incurring and I say would be.
Right now as we sit, the policy is that we're not counting whitetail and so we are going
to incur $2.6 million of additional energy expense in order to fill that 10 percent.
If this is out of order, tell me.
I'm curious as to why you mentioned some misinformation regarding the initial decision not to include.
Can you explain what that misinformation was, why this was not included in the initial package?
I would just characterize it as a detail in the renewable resource plan that wasn't adequately
explained.
And the reason from going back and reviewing those tapes is there was a lot of information
provided to PUB and council in a very short period of time on a very significant issue.
This contract, because of the nature of the contract, it's so different from the Santa
Rita contract or the Blue Bell II contract where it's very intuitive that what's actually
delivered has a REX and you count it.
But because of this one, your prior question is 30 megawatts around the clock and there
could be some periods of time when the resource is not running but yet energy is being delivered
and REX are being delivered, in order to simplify the plan, the consultants recommended that
we not include them.
And some of the PUB members may have been present during those conversations and may
be able to provide a little additional insight on to it.
And I think there was a feeling that it wasn't a physical asset, so they didn't -- it wasn't
real.
Sure.
That's part of the history.
But it is real.
It is being -- Yes, it is a physical -- it is a renewable resource and, again, because
ERCOT allocates REX to the resource and we have them in our account, it means that energy
was physically delivered as a renewable on to the ERCOT grid.
Many -- I should say most other, and I'm not familiar with any that actually don't, but
we consider any REX that they have in their account a renewable, regardless of the resource,
regardless of the source.
And, again, that's how the competitive retail providers, the REPs, that's how they were
measured by ERCOT for compliance with the renewable standard.
A couple other benefits, if you were to consider this potential, is that when the contract
expires in end of 2023, 2024, we will be able to go out and replace it then with something
that what I call temporal diversity, basically a shorter-term contract.
All of our contracts today are 15- to 20-year contracts.
That represents a risk, a very long-term price risk.
Markets change, regulatory paradigms change, and a lot of things could change over the
next 15- to 20-years.
If we could put another contract in place to replace this, that would say five years
or seven years or ten years, that will give us some temporal diversity in our portfolio
and enable us to avoid potential rate shock when each of these contracts end and we have
to replace them with another contract that could be at a higher price.
We're currently faced with a projection in the market that we're going to see an additional
20% wind and a huge amount of solar resources that are coming into the market.
And if we wait to replace this contract, we may be able to take advantage of lower prices
that could be available over the next four years.
And then the last one option that is out there is battery storage, potentially we're seeing
battery prices come down.
We are doing RFP right now, we'll get the results of that in February to look at battery
storage to see if that's a way to more cost-effectively utilize the resources we have.
Many of the resources, well, Santa Rita for example, we see that producing renewable energy
at night a lot and in the early morning when we don't need it to serve load, the battery
would enable us to store that energy when it has less value and then use it to consume
for load when it has a lot more value and when the wind is not blowing as hard.
That would give, that would still be a renewable energy because it was charged with renewable
energy and we get the full value for that.
So those are some options that could be taken advantage of for you to decide to adopt one
of these other options.
So again, here are the three options, status quo, option two, what I'll call the physical
option which is the lower of 30 megawatts or the actual.
That would add 10% towards the goal immediately and avoids that $2.6 million of additional
cost and then the third option which you might consider is to credit all of the renewable
energy credits that we have in the account towards the 100% objective.
When the contract was modified in 2016 to include the additional 30 megawatts of recs,
the reason that was done was to achieve the then renewable dent in plan of 40% and so
the specific purpose at that time was to add that 30 megawatts of recs in order to achieve
that 40%.
If you choose to go with option two or three, we would have to go to council with a resolution
since the dent in renewable resource plan was adopted by resolution, we have to amend
it by resolution as well.
And here again is the percent for each of the options and we're looking at in 19-20,
we'd go from 50 under the current status quo to 60 or 82% under option three.
And we can see that we'd be-- without any additional purchases, we'd be at the 100%
by 2021.
So with that, I guess there are any questions you might have.
>> Could you go back to the slide before the last-- that one.
No, one-- yeah, the options, yeah.
So number three is consistent with what all of the other retail electric--
>> The competitive retail electric providers.
>> Are doing.
>> Correct.
And I need to point out as well, we are not regulated by RCOT.
The dent in renewable resource plan is a community policy decision.
The policy makers in this community determine how you're going to account renewables against
it to account for them, what you're going to include and what you're not going to include.
So it's-- there's really no state oversight except for the generation of these recs and
the depositing of them into your account and again, RCOT monitors those accounts, administers
those accounts for all market participants.
So it is a community decision on whether you decide to include these or not.
>> So I have a question.
Of the three options you've got up there, it's my understanding that from a rate payer
point of view, the least cost option of those three would be option two, is that correct?
>> Option three, option three would be the least cost option because if you think about
it, rate payers are already paying for those 60 megawatts of renewable energy credits.
If we only count the lower of 30 or actual, then we lose between-- whatever the differences
between 60 and the actual production and we would have to go and replace those in the
market.
We are currently planning to do that.
I mean that's what the RFPs are intended to do.
So--
>> And this replacement cost is the 2.6 million you're talking about.
>> That would be for the-- the 2.6 million is for the 30 megawatts, the lower of 30 or
actual.
If we were to take all of them, it would be a larger number.
>> Of savings.
>> The savings would be, I'm sorry, probably around five and a half million dollars.
>> Now, you spent more time on two than three.
Is that because of the prior perception of--
>> Yes.
>> We want it to be the physical energy that's--
>> Correct.
>> Okay.
>> I've spent more time on number two because it's kind of a compromise--
>> Right.
>> Between one and three, you know, DME, we're agnostic about this.
This is-- we're seeking your direction.
This is strictly a decision to be made by the PUB and council.
We can do whatever you decide to do.
>> Does option three include the two point-- would you have an option three, the 2.6 million
dollars that you have avoided in option two?
>> Yes, it would be 2.6 million plus the value of those energy credits that are above the
30 megawatts.
So that additional 30 megawatts which is about-- let me go back here.
Here you can see it's about 262,800 recs per year is that additional 30.
They're about two dollars apiece.
So for three years, you know, you're talking about-- what's that?
About 1.5 million for three years of rec value on top of the 2.6.
>> So I'm a rate payer.
Let's pretend I'm a rate payer.
Tell me why option three is-- the view point I have now is option three would cost more
than option two.
>> No.
No.
Other way.
>> So it's 2.6 million of savings in option two, an additional 1.5 million of savings
associated with option three.
>> So option three is the least cost for the rate payer.
Is that true?
>> Correct.
>> Yes.
>> But again, I need to point out that, you know, currently as we manage the position,
we're managing it from the premise of there are no credits that we're assuming from Whitetail.
So in our projections, in our budgets that we've provided to you for consideration, we
have not included this potential savings.
Well, from my perspective, I would go with option three because recs are real.
They are.
They're real energy.
But I would also be happy with two.
But I think we need to count it.
It is something that we are receiving and we should count it towards our renewable.
>> Yeah.
I would agree.
My main question was whether this was just a sort of a counting trick to make us look
good or whether it actually achieved the goals that we've established, you know, as something
that's a priority for the city.
So if this, if the recs represent actual renewables, I mean, I think that answers that question.
Three seems to be, makes sense.
>> And I agree with Susan and Karen on this, that we should use all the credits we're paying
for, particularly given your representation that those are legitimate, they're regulated
or caught approved.
We're not going out on a limb or a tangent to call something renewable that is not.
It has to be generated from a renewable standpoint to generate that credit.
So I'm very comfortable with using all the credits that we've paid for toward our goal
of going to 100% renewable.
>> And to Karen's point, it's not an accounting trick.
It's really there.
So.
>> I have a question.
Do you have the, can you put up the document from enterprise risk that was in our backup
material?
>> Let's see.
>> I just have a couple of questions.
>> Actually don't, I apologize, I don't have that on the backup, the slide, but I'm very
familiar with the letter.
I spent a lot of time discussing this with enterprise risk because obviously we wanted
their consent before we made any type of recommendation.
Thanks.
I've got it now.
>> Okay.
>> I just don't have it up here.
>> My question is, first of all, what is the definition of off take?
>> Off take is a term of art in the business.
It means the amount of energy that we're purchasing.
So it's, these are called off take agreements or power purchase agreements.
>> Okay.
>> The other question I had was, if, I'll just read this, with regard to White Tail Wolf
Ridge, upon review of your documentation we believe it may be possible to classify a portion
of the off take from the White Tail Wolf Ridge contract with NextEra as renewable energy
subject to A, the ability to trace the energy production from the specific renewable generation
resource and the renewable energy credits and B, a dent in renewable energy formal operational
process as proposed earlier in this letter that supports such a classification which
is what we're talking about now.
So my question is, do we have, is there the ability to trace the energy production from
the specific renewable generation resource?
>> Yes, sir.
It is documented.
This is that one chart I was showing you here.
This is the physical output of energy from the resource as reported to ERCOT by NextEra.
So yes, it is physically possible to track this after the fact.
And for each of these, in our account for that 60 megawatts, the rec actually is like
a serial number on it that's associated with a certain time period and the specific resource
that it came from so that things don't get double counted in the marketplace.
>> Well, I as well support option three and because of the obvious benefits not only to
the rate payer, but to the incredible idea that Denton is actually going to 100% renewable
in this amount of time when other cities are struggling to get a fraction of this within
the next 15 years.
So thanks.
>> And I know we don't have action.
>> No.
I guess I'm hearing consensus from everyone.
I guess it would be beneficial for me when I speak to the council tomorrow about this
to know if all members of the PUB are in agreement that option three is the right option or whether
there's others that would like to go with option two or option one.
>> Option three sounds good.
>> Thank you.
>> Got your consensus.
All right.
So now we're on to items for individual consideration.
The first items are approval of the December 5th, the tour at the deck and the December
9th meeting minutes.
>> I'll move approval of both.
>> I'll second.
>> All in favor say aye.
>> Aye.
>> All right.
>> Second, consider recommending the adoption of an ordinance of the city of Denton, a contract
with archer western construction LLC for the construction of Hickory Creek detention facility
and Pecan Creek West peak flow pump stations for the amount of $14,458,000.
>> Good morning again, Frank Pugsley, water and waste water utilities director.
I'd like to briefly discuss the Hickory Creek detention facility and West peak flow pump
station in this construction project.
The Hickory Creek detention facility is located off of country club road in the Hickory Creek
system between country club and 377 and it is to be a 3.5 million gallon ground storage
tank to hold waste water peak flow during peak flow rainfall events and that will temporarily
reduce the amount of waste water traveling down the Hickory Creek system to the Hickory
Creek lift station and it involves the construction of a diversion pump station, a new manhole
and weir structure to access the existing interceptor, storage tank, odor control, cleaning
equipment to help us clean that tank after we let the waste water flow out after the
peak flow events and general access roadways and appurtenances to it.
Additionally, as part of this project, we are to construct a waste water peak flow
pump station at the actual waste water plant at Pecan Creek and this will intercept peak
flows coming from the north and west of the plant.
We have an existing peak flow facility that is on the state school interceptor to divert
flows from the south.
This pump station will pick up flows coming in and pump them to another on-site basin
for temporary storage during peak flow events to help the plant accommodate large flow variations.
We submitted or issued a request for proposal for this project, received two proposals,
one from Oscar Renda Contracting and the second one from Archer Western.
Archer Western was selected as the best value for the city.
They were approximately $2 million lower than Oscar Renda so not only were they lower in
price but they're also the best value as far as our anticipated performance.
They're currently working on two projects locally at the Lake Louisville water treatment
plant and we're confident in their abilities to do this project.
With that, we recommend awarding the contract to Archer Western, actually I think that alternate
A2, I'm not sure, I think that was a leftover artifact from another project so I apologize
for that but award the contract to Archer Western in the amount of $14,458,000 and just
in general here's a map of the two locations of the facility, the Hickory Creek Detention
Facility being in the southern portion of town on the Hickory Creek system and then
at the Pecan Creek Water Recovery Facility there.
With that I'll entertain any questions you might have about the project.
Go ahead, you don't have a question?
When I'm looking at the evaluation score sheet, I know that you said that they're already
working at Lake Louisville and that's why they scored higher.
Oscar Renda didn't score very high, do we have experience with that or is it-- I know
the price was $2 million lower so obviously you're going to save $2 million.
I believe that we don't really have much recent relevant experience with Archer Western at
the city, the reason why they scored lower.
Okay.
I had a question.
Oscar Renda, yes.
Oscar, right.
Oh sorry, Oscar Renda, I'm sorry, we don't have a recent experience with Oscar Renda.
Okay.
Just a clarification, wastewater is not the same as sewage, correct?
One and the same, yes.
They are the same.
Yes, I'm using those interchangeably.
All right, so wastewater is also runoff from storms?
In the wastewater collection system, we do have infiltration that occurs in storm events
and flow and infiltration.
We can't have a completely impervious pipe network.
We do our best to repair areas where we do find I&I, inflow and infiltration, but peak
storm events do cause a very large peak flow in the wastewater system for any utility.
When we do design work, we require the system to actually be designed for a four to one
ratio from average daily to peak storm event.
Okay.
So as part of the reason for this, just curious, the forecast for what's going to happen climate-wise
in this area in the next 40 to 70 years, I think it is, is that rain events will become
scarcer, but when they happen, the amounts will be deluge-like as we've already seen.
Will this facility help in the control of flooding in that respect as well?
It will definitely help control the amount of wastewater that our plant has to treat
on a peak flow basis.
I neglected to mention this facility is designed to be expandable.
We're putting in one three and a half million gallon tank today with the anticipation where
we may install a second tank up to another three and a half million as flows grow in
that basin.
The Hickory Creek basin and the interceptor is fairly old.
We are actively working on projects to replace segments of it.
It's largely in floodplain, so we do have a lot of I&I in that system, so we will actually
be either lining or replacing a large quantity of that line in the coming years to help with
that, but yes, this will definitely help with those peak flow events from our large rain
events.
It will help to just kind of divert a portion of that flow so that the wastewater plant
doesn't have to accommodate those peaks and that will help us defer expansions to the
wastewater plant in the future as well.
Thank you.
So there's a lot of home construction going on in that area.
Does the increase in impermeable surface affect your runoff at all?
Is that taken into account?
We don't take that into account from the wastewater side, but definitely from a stormwater perspective.
I'm not completely versed on the building codes for stormwater, but that's why there
is additional detention requirements these days for areas with new impervious pavement.
Right now you're getting land that's absorbing the water is being transferred to homes that
don't absorb water.
Very true.
I'm not completely versed on that.
If that's that should be documented.
And anything that you learn from how it failed,
not how quickly it was repaired and service restored.
I'm not looking at it from that point of view.
Although you could do that.
Do similar conditions exist within the system
that we should be paying more attention to?
To avert a future catastrophic failure.
These are the kinds of things that it would benefit
the utility to probably document in my opinion.
Sure, and we've documented from what we can tell
what happened in this area with the pump that actually did fail.
We are actually also in the process of doing
an overall emergency response plan that can allow us
to if those types of events happen.
And with doing that we're doing a condition assessment
of all of our lift stations so that we can see
if we have other issues in the actual
in the lift station program that we can see.
So at this time we're aware of some areas that have concerns.
But this is a very large lift station.
It's our largest in our system.
So the only thing that we're moving forward with right now
is doing an overall condition assessment of all of the lift stations
we have in our system.
Any other questions?
Thank you.
And then the next item on the green tree estates.
That has been an ongoing issue.
The city manager's office, water and wastewater utilities,
whole host of departments are working with that neighborhood.
So council gave staff direction back on December the 10th,
so the day after the PV meeting.
And so we wanted to provide you with all the information
that's been given to the community, that community
along with presentations that have been made.
And so we're working now with those residents
to move the effort forward.
We anticipate bringing a work session to council
at their first meeting in February to, I believe February 4th,
to give them an update on where things are based on the direction
they gave us back on December the 10th.
So just wanted to provide everything for the PVB
so you could have everything at certainly your convenience
and it's posted there online for transparency purposes.
One question about that.
In reading the documentation about this episode,
and I saw it on TV and so forth,
and a lot of information flying around out there,
I learned that there are nine other neighborhoods
in 300 to 400 additional lots
that are potentially in the same situation.
So I would suggest that it might be wise for the utility department
to make some kind of preliminary contingency plan
for each of those nine neighborhoods.
That if you have a repeat of this,
where you've got to provide bottled water
to those nine neighborhoods on short notice,
how do you do that?
I'm not suggesting that you have to detail the design now,
but have some kind of a preliminary approach on paper in hand
so that you know we have to do something here
in this neighborhood, this is the way we're going to approach it.
Thank you.
So any questions on those items?
In relation to your future agendas,
there is an item that was shown for today,
the landfill expansion permit.
That should have actually been included as an ACM update
to give you all pieces of information
related to the status of the permit
and the timing of the permit.
We're currently in the public comment phase
with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
So we included that in the Friday packet for council,
and we'll make sure that this is sent to you today
so you're aware of that.
And then we'll include that in an upcoming PUB meeting
just as an ACM update.
Again, just looking at the future agenda items,
where it shows an update on the declaration of emergency
for Old Alton lift station.
That actually is the Hickory Creek item.
It's just on Old Alton Road,
so we sort of use those terms interchangeably,
so you've been given that information,
and then we'll be coming back to you in late January
for the solid waste management study or strategy,
and then the water and wastewater rate study
upcoming in February, so any questions?
-All right, any new business items?
I guess it's just an attachment,
so we know it's going to be on the future board meeting.
All right, concluding items,
is there anything that a board member wishes to have
on a future agenda?
Okay, hearing none, do we have a motion to adjourn?
-I move we adjourn.
-All right, adjourned.