[0:00] a new line. For obvious reasons, he
couldn't get out of his house and get
[0:03] here this evening.
[0:07] » Told him do not put yourself in peril as
we were kind of on the fence today as to
[0:12] whether or not we would be able to get a
quorum meeting. I do appreciate you all
[0:15] being here. Uh to get started, I would
ask that everyone stand up for the
[0:18] pledge.
[0:22] I pledge
>> to the flag of the United States of
[0:26] America and to the republic for which it
stands, one nation under God,
[0:32] indivisible, with liberty and justice
for all.
[0:37] » Pastor Freddy has a ridge line. What's
that?
[0:40] » He has a ridge line.
[0:45] » Yeah.
Um, and so Miss Barbara also could not
[0:49] make it here tonight. No, Christa
couldn't make it here. Raven had to get
[0:52] home. Uh, as far as support staff were
were short-handed, but again, thank you
[0:58] all for being here. Um, had Dustin, our
city attorney, looked over, he said we
[1:02] can go forward with the meeting as we do
have some important business that we
[1:05] needed to discuss. Um,
he's going to help the reading of
[1:10] resolutions and things, keep notes on
votes. uh Miss Barbara can then resolve
[1:16] the minutes based on the uh the live
stream and our notes and reconcile those
[1:22] uh to put together formal minutes for
tonight's meeting. Um
[1:28] first thing though will be the approval
of the minutes from the December 22nd
[1:32] 2025 meeting.
[1:38] » Second. Got a motion and a second. Um,
so let me help take notes here.
[1:46] Uh,
motion was from Kyle Marx. Second
[1:53] James have a motion to second. Uh, let
me get a voice vote.
[1:58] » Yes.
>> Mr. Schneider.
[2:00] » Yes.
>> Mr. Hann,
[2:01] » yes.
>> Mr. Marks,
[2:02] » yes.
>> Mr. Gill,
[2:03] » yes.
[2:06] » All right. Second order of business, the
financial statement for December 2025.
[2:13] » Make a motion to accept the December
2025 financial statement.
[2:18] » Second
[2:29] get a full. Okay. Mr. Hickman. Yes. Mr.
Snider.
[2:32] » Yes. Mr. Hann. Yes. Mr. Mars. Yes. Mr.
G.
[2:35] » Yes.
[2:39] Thank you, gentlemen. Um, I do want to
skip the order just a bit tonight. Uh,
[2:45] just to put things in motion. Uh, we've
had a council vacancy open since
[2:49] November 2020, uh, 25th, 2025 when I
stepped down toward two position one.
[2:56] Uh, we've had some interested parties.
uh after talking to them and and
[3:02] speaking with uh this gentleman, I would
like to make uh the appointment of Mr.
[3:08] Randy Pullman
to that Z2 position one. Uh Randy has
[3:14] served on our planning commission for
some time. Uh
[3:20] Randy, if you want to speak or you want
to speak for you just based on our
[3:23] conversation, he feels like he can do
more and serve the community better uh
[3:27] in a bigger capacity on council for the
remaining term. So I'll make that
[3:31] appointment uh
and ask council to vote on that
[3:37] appointment.
I guess you have to make a motion in a
[3:40] second, but
>> I make a motion to accept Mr. Homeman
[3:44] uh for ward two position one
>> second
[3:52] » Mr. Hickman.
>> Yes.
[3:53] » Mr. Schneider.
>> Yes.
[3:54] » Mr. Hannah.
>> Yes.
[3:56] » Mr. Marks.
>> Yes.
[3:57] » Mr.
>> Yes.
[3:59] » Good deal. Randy, if you want to step
up, I'll uh
[4:03] I'll swear you in.
>> Okay.
[4:07] » As soon as I can find what There it is.
Nowhere else.
[4:16] » Just raise your right hand and say,
repeat after me. I, Randy Holman,
[4:20] » I Randy
>> do solemnly swear affirmly swear
[4:24] » that I will support the Constitution of
the United States Constitution of the
[4:29] United States
>> and the Constitution of the State of
[4:31] Arkansas.
>> constitution of the State of Arkansas.
[4:33] And then I will discharge the duties
>> of the office of alderman
[4:39] » of the office of alderman
>> on which upon which I'm about to
[4:43] » which I'm about second
[4:51] rotator I want to do
[5:07] You got a low rider there.
[5:26] down here.
[5:32] » Bet you sitting forward now.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Right on the bottom.
[5:36] » Let me adjust that thing up.
[5:44] » Is that
>> I believe so.
[5:46] our arm wrestle.
[6:16] Uh the next item of business will be the
organizational calendar. Um the
[6:24] ordinance 20261
um
[6:30] calendar should have been in your
packets to look at. You've got the uh
[6:34] the whole organizational structure and
everything in that. Um
[6:39] it's got the council meeting dates
listed on I think that's appendix A. Uh
[6:44] we did make a few changes to the
workshop days because there were a few
[6:47] months as in January where such a big
gap uh and put the workshop date to the
[6:52] beginning of the month. I believe it was
January and October that we looked at
[6:55] moving to the 15th instead of the 8th in
October. Um
[7:00] but basically that structure stays the
same of u the fourth Tuesday as the
[7:05] council meetings and the second Thursday
as workshop meetings. Um,
[7:11] as time goes along, we may be able to
streamline those workshop meetings as
[7:14] well. Um, is everybody in agreement with
that calendar? I think it's the biggest
[7:18] part of that, the organizational
structure.
[7:24] » I guess we go ahead and amend that.
>> Um,
[7:29] » yeah, I was just thinking that
[7:37] sure.
[7:40] So I guess before we vote on the
ordinance, uh
[7:45] section one of that was the ratification
of recently elected officials. It does
[7:48] show um board 2, position one is vacant.
So I would entertain a motion and a
[7:56] second to amend that part of the
ordinance.
[7:59] » Make a motion to amend section 1A.
[8:08] Second
[8:20] local.
>> Mr. Hickman.
[8:22] » Yes.
>> Mr. Snder.
[8:23] » Yes.
>> Mr. Home.
[8:24] » Yes.
>> Mr. H.
[8:26] » Yes.
>> Mr. Marks.
[8:27] » Yes.
>> Yes.
[8:30] » So, we got that amendment. Now, um
because this is an ordinance and it's a
[8:35] rather timely ordinance, I guess we need
to entertain a motion
[8:40] for the ordinance procedure for
ordinance 2026-1
[8:51] looking for
I make a motion be adopt ordinance
[8:56] 20261. Is that right? So you'll have to
do go through the ordinance procedure
[9:01] first because it is an ordinance the top
section the suspend the rules it's page
[9:06] nine of the packet if that helps.
>> Yeah I move that we suspend the rules um
[9:11] and weigh the second third reading uh of
202601
[9:17] ordinance by vote on 20261 after
second.
[9:24] » So motion by Mr. Mark second by Mr.
[9:31] Uh, can you restate that motion?
>> The motion has been made and seconded.
[9:36] City council suspend the rules, wave the
second and third reading ordinance
[9:40] 202601 and read the entire elements by
title only and vote on 20261 after its
[9:46] initial reading.
[9:50] Call
>> Mr. Hig. Yes. Mr. Snder. Yes. Mr.
[9:53] Hullman.
>> Yes. Mr. Hammond.
[9:54] » Yes. Mr. Marks.
>> Yes. Mr. Hill.
[9:56] » Yes.
Ordinance 202601, ordinance organizing
[10:00] the city council at meeting scheduled
for year 2026 enacted annually pursuant
[10:05] to Arkansas code 144350.
I
[10:09] » make a move we adopt ordinance 2026-
[10:18] roll.
>> Mr. Hickman,
[10:20] » yes. Mr. Snder,
>> yes. Mr. H.
[10:21] » Yes. Mr.
>> H. Yes. Mr. Marks. Yes. Mr. H.
[10:24] » Yes.
Thank you.
[10:29] There is an emergency clause that we uh
acted on
[10:35] the emergency clause.
[10:39] » Second.
[10:42] » Yes. Mr. Snder.
>> Yes. Mr.
[10:44] » Yes.
>> Yes. Mr.
[10:46] » Marks. Yes. Mr.
>> Yes. Thank you, gentlemen. Seemed like a
[10:50] lot of circumstance to go through.
just to set a calendar.
[10:56] All right. Um item B, uh resolution
resolution 2026-01,
[11:03] uh amending the 2025 budget.
Um if
[11:09] some of you have been through this
process before, some of you hadn't. So,
[11:12] I'll just give a brief recap. Um
we set a budget at the beginning of the
[11:18] year, projected what we think we'll
spend out of each line item as the year
[11:21] goes along.
it has to be resolved at the end of that
[11:25] fiscal year u for auditing purposes and
payments. So what this resolution does
[11:31] is basically kind of a a blanket
resolution uh to resolve all of those
[11:38] line items or either less money was
spent, more money was spent just to make
[11:42] the budget line up with what the actual
expenses were out of the accounts. It's
[11:46] a it's a reconciliation resolution is
what it is. Um Dustin and I to say this
[11:53] common doll sitting here have to do this
essentially.
[12:00] » So I'd entertain a motion. Uh you can
read the resolution
[12:06] » resolution 202601 a resolution providing
for an amendment to resolution 202503
[12:12] budget resolution for the city of
Mayflower Arkansas for the year 2025
[12:24] » motion
resolution 2026.
[12:30] Second.
>> Yes, sir.
[12:33] » Mr. Hickman.
>> Yes.
[12:34] » Mr. Snder.
>> Yes.
[12:35] » Mr. Fman.
>> Yes.
[12:36] » Hannah.
>> Yes.
[12:37] » Mr. Marks.
>> Yes.
[12:38] » Mr. Hill.
>> Yes.
[12:40] » Thank you,
>> gentlemen.
[12:42] Uh, item C, resolution 2026-02,
Preston Sewer Billy.
[12:58] Read the resolution.
>> Yeah, read the resolution.
[13:00] » Resolution 2022602, a resolution
authorizing the mayor to sign on behalf
[13:05] of the city the billing services
agreement between the city and Conway
[13:08] Corporation pertaining to sewer utility
billing services provided to Conway
[13:12] Corporation, Conway Cor and for other
purposes.
[13:19] So, this is a resolution uh just for
some discussion on it. On the north end
[13:24] of our water district, we had customers
that are water customers that have been
[13:28] tied on to Conport sewer that were never
on our sewer. Um they had their own kind
[13:34] of community sewer
and they voted to tie with Concort. uh
[13:39] Commerce asking us since we send out
their water and utility bill for us to
[13:44] continue doing that the same way we did
for the other sewer service. Um
[13:49] we charge a fee the fees stated in here
uh for our billing services
[13:56] the rates based on the water used
because we already have that information
[13:59] since we sell the water and then send
that payment to convin.
[14:05] basically just a billing agreement
that's changed from one apartment to
[14:08] another. Uh the terms have stayed the
same. Um what I've looked at on this is
[14:13] the rate the billing rate we're charging
is um it's fair to us for the time we're
[14:20] putting in the bill.
[14:26] Any other questions?
I entertain a motion resolution 2026.
[14:32] I'll make the motion that we accept
resolution 202602
[14:37] concerning the Preston sewer building.
[14:42] » Mr. Hickman,
>> yes.
[14:44] » Mr. Schneider,
>> yes. Mr.
[14:45] » Yes.
>> Yes. Mr. Ms.
[14:47] » Yes. Mr. H.
>> Yes.
[14:50] » Gentlemen.
[14:55] Out of D,
which is resolution 2026-03.
[15:01] uh the paving of the section of Center
Street. Jim, is Jim and Joe here? There
[15:07] you are.
I know we talked about this in the
[15:10] workshop, but if anyone has any
questions, uh
[15:16] I think Jim and Joe did
>> I had a question out of the black paper.
[15:24] Jimmy,
[15:28] » you want to read the resolution first?
>> Resolution 20263, the resolution
[15:33] authorizing the mayor of the city of
Hlflower to expend funds from the street
[15:36] one cent sales tax for the purpose of
repair and maintenance to a strip
[15:40] measuring 466
ft on Sentry Street.
[15:47] » Okay. The question was the the blind.
>> Yeah, that's uh it it lines the bottom
[15:55] of it. It's supposed to help with the
moisture
[16:00] coming up through it. Plus, it bonds
what I'm putting in there. Compacting
[16:07] it.
[16:10] » I'm sold on it.
>> I'd never heard that. That's why I was
[16:14] asking.
>> Yeah. It's just an
[16:16] » under.
[16:26] Actually have a question Jimmy and Joe
real quick on it.
[16:28] » All right.
>> So the the asphalt the 23,000 for
[16:31] asphalt again is this section of center
street and is it included in the because
[16:37] we didn't get to this the last council
meeting and I don't actually have the
[16:39] paper in front of me but I think we
mentioned it at the workshop. Uh we were
[16:45] approved for the AROT grant.
>> Yes.
[16:47] » Um and we'll have a part to to pay in
that that'll start I think they're
[16:52] looking at starting paving in 2027
getting
[16:54] » 20 January. There it's supposed to go
out for bids.
[16:58] » Gotcha.
>> In January 2027
[17:01] » but basically do you remember that
number Jimmy off end of the grant?
[17:06] » It's a $400,000 grant
>> and our piece will be 80,000 roughly.
[17:10] Exactly.
>> Yeah. Roughly
[17:13] uh to go ahead and add
these other streets in on top of that.
[17:20] While they're here, we're getting a a
deal on the pavement.
[17:26] So,
>> that's why we voted that in.
[17:31] » Yes. And I know Center Street was one of
the included streets. Does that include
[17:34] this area of Center Street on that
project? It includes from Gandandy Lane
[17:40] to the end of Sidland South
and
[17:47] Gandandy Lane that's involved with it
because the north end
[17:53] of Center Street is in pretty good shape
and it's the south end that's falling
[18:01] apart on me. So, I thought, you know, in
line with the subdivision,
[18:09] that would be
a good deal. Go ahead and put that in.
[18:16] And then the rest of the streets. I'm
excited. That's a lot of streets.
[18:21] » And And I guess that was my question is
is that if this wasn't the same section
[18:25] street, they were going to pave. If it
was, we did the prep work and then let
[18:28] them pay you. But if
>> Yes.
[18:30] » If it's a separate piece, then we need
to go ahead and pay for the pave. They
[18:32] don't let them.
>> Well, we've got to prep it.
[18:35] » Okay.
>> The only reason I was wanting to put
[18:38] that little stretch of pavement in there
was just as a shim
[18:44] » for when they do pavement
>> and then they'll pave over the top of it
[18:48] and we shouldn't have any print or
anything.
[18:53] Should go.
[18:56] Gotcha.
>> Well, this do we know like down air
[19:01] centers south
get a lot of trucks going to the dump?
[19:05] » Yes.
>> Is is that where and road is that more
[19:11] than what was anticipated when that was
originally put in?
[19:14] » Yes.
>> And this
[19:16] » Well, that was old 365. Okay.
[19:22] » Will this project be built
to
[19:29] support those larger vehicles.
>> Well, it has up until now it's pretty
[19:38] much supported everything been hammered
on it, but now it's got to have some
[19:43] tension,
>> right?
[19:44] » And that's one other one been loaded.
Garbage trucks are just like a loaded
[19:51] dump truck and they're heavy and they
hammer
[19:57] So, and then the added traffic from the
sub b is the reason I was wanting to go
[20:03] ahead and address this problem, too.
>> I I think it's great. I just want to be
[20:08] sure that if we had the opportunity to
build to a standard to help the road
[20:13] last longer, we won't be
>> Well, the only thing you could do with
[20:16] that is to bridge it with concrete.
>> I mean, ensure it probably
[20:25] and down the road.
Center Street being so narrow anyway, I
[20:30] could see useful traffic, but can we
restrict the flow since that subdivision
[20:35] is out on White City Road? Restrict the
flow of traffic to no trucks on that
[20:42] street. Would that be helpful?
>> We could do that,
[20:46] but
>> make them take the highway and city road
[20:49] pick it up
soon. Yeah, you know, all those houses
[20:55] going in over there, it be kind of
difficult getting in and out because it
[21:00] is because like you said, the street is
so narrow,
[21:04] but I never entertained that, you know,
because
[21:10] maybe in the future,
but we take in that city dog.
[21:15] » Definitely on the radar. Yes.
>> Yes.
[21:23] But I guess with the resolution,
any other questions with the council
[21:27] from the council about
the amount or the scope of the project
[21:32] for stated in resolution 2026-03
[21:41] make a motion to accept resolution
2026-3.
[21:46] Second.
[21:52] Correct.
Or the order that you're sitting down.
[21:56] Mr.
>> Yes.
[21:57] » Mr. Marks. Yes. Mr. Snder.
>> Yes.
[21:59] » Mr. Hill. Yes. Mr. H.
>> Yes.
[22:00] » Mr. Hall.
>> Yes.
[22:04] » Thank you.
>> Thank you, Jim.
[22:07] » Thanks for the good job on the city
streets here, too, brother.
[22:09] » Absolutely.
>> Good job. That doesn't go without
[22:12] shouldn't go without on the ice.
>> Yeah. Thank y'all. I can't get to many
[22:19] of these.
>> Take take those out of quick
[22:26] break.
[22:30] » Uh, next item, item E. Um, resolution
2026-04,
[22:37] the fire and water split for generator.
Um, I know Mr. Matthews is stuck in from
[22:43] weather or not. He knew everything about
this resolution. Um Raymond is also at
[22:49] home tonight trying to get home before
where he lives out west before they got
[22:52] bad so he didn't make it to the meeting.
Um
[23:00] Chief Warren's here. He could talk about
what he knows about the fire side of
[23:03] this uh
as far as the split cost.
[23:08] » I thought we hammered that out the other
day.
[23:10] » We did talk about it in there. It's a
splitting call and I'm trying to look
[23:13] for it here and I don't even see it in
my in my notes. Um
[23:17] » I'm pretty sure the cost was $9,600
each for each department.
[23:27] » And I know Raymond had in the in the
budget in the 26 budget I think you had
[23:32] close to 30,000 for a generator. So he
definitely has the money. U Chief War
[23:37] and I talked about it. It was not
budgeted in the fire budget this year.
[23:42] uh an already pretty shoestring budget
and we'd have to look at what part of
[23:47] the budget that comes out of because
operation maintenance all these
[23:50] different lines don't have enough to
look at where that comes out of um
[23:56] I think there's a place it could come
out of am I wrong chief
[24:00] » yeah I mean we I think we can make it
come out of
[24:05] stretch
>> going to stretch thin and again it
[24:10] depends on where revenues are toward the
end of the year. We look at maybe
[24:13] closing up, but I think that generator
with the grant that's applied is is kind
[24:17] of a non-negotiable to get uh constant
power to our fire station in in the in
[24:25] an emergency.
Could could we uh structure it
[24:32] for
that for that part of it?
[24:36] » There's a potential that we could do
that. Uh again his water had 30,000
[24:42] » I'm saying they
>> budgeted for it. Um
[24:47] or what I told Chief looking because
I think with with chief taking the
[24:52] reigns and just looking at things new
just like our police chief there's going
[24:56] to be some things that are going to be
shuffled and reordered that maybe we
[25:00] look at it towards the end of the year
if there's a short hall somewhere that
[25:04] we can potentially look at some places
to shuffle uh to fill those needs.
[25:10] Uh if that sounds good to everyone at
this point,
[25:14] but I think the the grant for these for
this generator is just too good to pass
[25:18] up for both water and fire this little
combin
[25:36] we can take voicemail.
discussed.
[25:41] » So, we don't have anated resolution for
this, but if someone would care to make
[25:46] a motion, I have a question. Go ahead.
[25:51] Water has budgeted
[25:56] 30,000
1%.
[26:08] » I don't have the details of I mean,
would it hurt? That's okay. Sorry.
[26:14] Listen.
Would it hurt to go ahead and
[26:19] pay fire out of water? Steal savings
money from not having to buy a hole
[26:25] shared anyway. Have a new fire chief,
new direction, new things that we really
[26:30] want to strap in down. We pay for it out
of water since it was already there.
[26:35] Then we can look at that end of the year
back at the end of year
[26:46] proposal. You see any issues with that?
[26:52] » I mean it's still only 2/3 of what was
budget or generated for the same for
[26:58] gener. It's only 2/3 of what was
budgeted if water go. and see if we
[27:03] could if we need to rearrange that down
the road in more than a year. But we've
[27:08] had something budgeted there instead of
strapping a new budget to fire. I mean,
[27:13] we just about can't say we can't say no.
I mean, it's we got a grant. Matter of
[27:20] you know if if the fire department would
not have gotten the grant
[27:26] then the water department would be
paying not 2/3 but they pay 100%.
[27:32] So would it be okay
legal? Is it okay to just pay that part
[27:38] out of warrant?
[27:42] I don't see an issue with it.
I'm actually texting Matthews now
[27:46] because he has dug into this u am I
currently
[27:53] » Yeah. The way I understood the the
purchase on it, it was a no-brainer with
[27:56] the percentage to do it. There was no
question about it.
[28:00] I think you'd probably have to have a
maybe have to have something writing to
[28:04] say that you were going to do that or
to keep us remind us what we're going to
[28:08] do at the end of the year. Pay them back
if they needed it.
[28:15] We need to buy that though like they've
got a plan.
[28:19] » Yes.
[28:26] » She's got it as resolution. 66-04.
There's just not a Yeah.
[28:32] » Uh
[28:35] I'm taking notes here.
[28:50] be 9,800 each fire
[28:58] has the particulars in stated he will do
that resolution. So that's that. Okay. I
[29:03] was worried I dropped the ball.
[29:15] So instead of the 50/50, Mr. Hman,
you're proposing water cover it.
[29:20] » I
[29:23] » and then we'll revisit fire state active
[29:31] the projection start coming in.
[29:36] So I'm just going to change that to
resolution. I've done an old
[29:38] » just we'll take a warning document in
the minutes and then we'll back up
[29:44] resolution
>> basically just say water.
[29:48] » Yeah. So a war stove on water department
covering the what would that amount be?
[29:55] 20,000
roughly 20,000
[30:00] 20,000
>> 19,600
[30:06] » so I'm putting water department cover
total cost initially
[30:14] being roughly 20,000
[30:20] for both generators
[30:25] So, we're going to restate that motion.
>> Your motion uh motion that the water
[30:31] department cover the total cost for
initially for both generators of $20,000
[30:38] given some flexibility 196.
Uh and we'll revisit fires contribution
[30:44] toward the end of the year.
So if we'll get a vote on that action.
[30:51] » Uh that's the motion. I guess we need a
second.
[30:58] » Welcome. Mr. Hickman.
>> Yes. Mr.
[31:00] » Marks. Yes.
>> Mr. Snder.
[31:01] » Yes.
>> Mr. Hill.
[31:02] » Yes.
>> Mr. Hammond.
[31:03] » Yes.
>> Mr. Hall.
[31:04] » Yes.
[31:10] » All right.
[31:14] Next item. item G because we already
skipped up on F real quick is our we're
[31:20] kind of on the water so I I just kind of
want to make just uh
[31:26] keep I keep looking at the unaccounted
for water loss
[31:30] » and a half million gallons
>> and I mean we're we're almost 2.5
[31:35] million gallons unaccounted for
um I mean it's it seems to be
[31:44] because it it was hovering around a
million to a million and a half million
[31:50] eight and now we're at 2.5
and I mean there it just seems to be
[31:59] getting worse
and I mean we're we I think we
[32:05] calculated that at somewhere around
10ish,000 a month.
[32:12] Um, I mean, when we're looking at the
percentage of loss, it's 16.6%.
[32:18] That's
>> We've got to address that. That's got to
[32:23] be addressed. That's got to be a a
needs to be a priority. I I
[32:33] I agree and get to talk about some
things here in just a few minutes with
[32:36] uh Mr. Dreenidge from Salt Engineering
have to do with the wastewater side, but
[32:41] also having to do with water financing,
that sort of thing. I think I know what
[32:45] Mr. Rekenage is going to say before he
says it that 16%. The national average
[32:49] is around 15%. Is that correct?
>> But
[32:52] » yeah, I mean it's Yeah, if you're if
you're under 20 for Arkansas and it's
[32:57] say you're
>> infant. Yeah, it just depends on the
[33:02] » that's industry standard. Now, let me be
clear on the record. We set our own
[33:08] standards here at Lithar. It's
unacceptable. It's been brought up to
[33:11] Raymond and what we have to look at is
and Raymond said it time and time again.
[33:14] It's going to require more manpower to
go out, find the leaks, fix the leaks,
[33:19] that sort of thing.
I think that's an
[33:24] address.
>> Yeah. Um my my
[33:28] and I agree. I do think that that um you
know
[33:34] part of it. Um, but what but I really
and I know I I believe we're working on
[33:41] this. I I really would like to see
a strategic plan for infrastructure
[33:49] because that that I think is going to is
going to be key to addressing this
[33:54] longer. I like to see a strategic plan
and targeted goals that have in the last
[33:59] 12 months we've averaged 14% or whatever
that number ended up being
[34:04] that we set a goal of bringing that down
to 12%. or you know manageable
[34:09] doable goals.
>> If you're not striving to hold something
[34:13] then you're just pivot
looking at it 2.5 million gallons of
[34:21] that's that's a million more than what
it was few months ago last time I looked
[34:27] you know really paying attention
[34:32] things like that be something we can
kind of
[34:36] cuz we're not a large large water
system. I don't think
[34:41] » well if we just dedicate one person to
go drive
[34:46] » that's and that's right now we don't
have that person but Mr. for breaking.
[34:50] If you don't mind, go ahead and stand it
up for this. It's Rain is not here to
[34:54] jump into
>> Yeah,
[34:56] » you and I have even talked about this
since the last month or so. I believe I
[34:59] believe it was where they actually have
uh
[35:05] there are some options rather than just
driving around and trying to stomp out
[35:09] the woods and things.
Uh
[35:11] » yeah, there
>> there are some aerial survey options
[35:14] » there. Yeah, there's um satellite survey
options uh which work pretty well in
[35:19] cities down in rural areas. They don't
you you have to have basically it
[35:23] pinpoints an area of service. You have
to have then boots on the ground
[35:27] acoustic measurement some way to
pinpoint where to dig. It'll give you
[35:30] like the 300 foot radius that appears to
be a leak. They can differentiate
[35:34] between groundwater for a water solution
coming off. Uh there's you can just you
[35:40] know Raymond help them invest in
acoustic devices and and use their own
[35:45] manpower to do that.
>> There are metering you know
[35:51] systems you could put in
>> there says put a meter
[35:54] » not knowing the system put a meter at
certain legs uh mains on the system and
[35:59] make sure that the water being build
down this trunk if you will the line is
[36:03] matching the water that's being me
coming out of here. It makes a lot of
[36:06] sense there.
>> You've seen it d It sounds like you say
[36:10] you've seen it doubling in the past
month.
[36:13] » Water loss.
>> No, not necessarily doubling, but I mean
[36:16] it it's it seems to have been quite
>> Yeah. So, I mean that does indicate that
[36:21] there's
it's not just
[36:25] conventional wear and tear or service
line or things of that sort indicate,
[36:29] you know, probably some type of man leak
that has developed. But, you know,
[36:35] finding it is a trouble
there. There there there's technology
[36:40] out there to help with it, but there's
no you have to invest money to to do
[36:45] that. So, and manpower.
>> Well, and and we've got a counted water
[36:49] loss, and I don't know how you do that
other than an estimate on
[36:53] a water loss, but
>> Well, I mean, he know with your new
[36:57] metering systems that Well, I don't know
if you've got complete Does everybody
[37:01] have a new meter? still stretching
overly.
[37:04] » So with the new E-meters, you can tell
exactly how much goes out and how much,
[37:10] you know, through it comes to the master
meter, whatever the difference is where
[37:14] » and ultimately, let's let's just be
honest. Yes,
[37:18] I think we can do some things to
pinpoint those issues.
[37:22] Big picture, ultimately it's it's going
to come down to infrastructure
[37:26] over time. Obviously, we can't just go
in and dig up the city's pipes, but we
[37:29] want to see the strategic
improvement on the system. Uh, pinpoint
[37:35] those areas that are older that have
issues. I know I believe it was around
[37:39] Christmas. Uh,
Mr. Hammond called me and sent me a
[37:43] picture of a leak in Snugs that it was
just boiling up out of the road. Um,
[37:48] Brandon had to get locates to go in and
dig and dug it up. Luckily, it was right
[37:52] there near that that valve is where he
found it, just off of it. that it was
[37:56] essentially the pip flexed originally
wasn't laid right or something. there
[38:00] was something he explained. Again, I
don't get into the technicalities of the
[38:05] uh but that union there just just
separated. It was luckily it was
[38:09] contained right there, but I don't think
there's any way to gauge exactly how
[38:12] much water was lost out of that breach
in the main. Uh but those are the sorts
[38:18] of things that we can find with that
technology that we can find with a
[38:21] master meter in line I believe and start
pinpointing those areas and coming up
[38:26] with a plan that hey as we'll get the
revenues in to do it let's let's replace
[38:30] the section man let's
>> because I mean that's I mean right now
[38:34] it's
$120,000 a yearish
[38:39] that the city's paying
>> well do you still have old meters that
[38:44] do you as you replace all those meters
We've seen as much as 10% just in the
[38:49] meter itself. If you have old positive
displacement meters replaced by new E
[38:54] meters catching loads flow a lot better.
So we've seen as much as 10% just by
[38:59] meter replacement. So once you get all
those done, it may help, but it probably
[39:03] would be.
>> We're replacing meters and the water
[39:06] loss is going up. So it's it's
something's not right. I don't have the
[39:10] data bump to bunk, but I know I've seen
months where we've been as low as 7%.
[39:14] This is one of the higher ones I've seen
in the last 12 gown four months at 16.6.
[39:21] I don't think I've seen it higher than
that the last couple years, but we got
[39:24] down to an area of about seven or eight
that was again not acceptable. What's
[39:29] our standard industry standard this, but
let's set our standard that something
[39:32] else. So, I think it's definitely
something to look at going through and
[39:36] trying to think going back and showing
up the system.
[39:38] » I just don't want to keep wasting money
in the bank. We'll keep wasting money,
[39:42] but also just keep ignoring it. It seems
like we're just kind of aging with it.
[39:47] So, I'll make sure to re readress it.
>> Absolutely.
[39:54] » Anything else?
[40:01] Part G. Um,
we have several vacancies on the
[40:07] planning commission. Uh, as you know, we
had some some members of the community
[40:11] that expressed interest. Um, they came
to the council workshop, introduced
[40:15] themselves. Uh, I have tonight, I
believe, four appointments on my shoes
[40:22] that I would like to present to the
council and I believe the council will
[40:25] have to vote on these appointments
individually.
[40:29] Um,
yes.
[40:33] » Gotcha.
And is there a swearing of these? We do
[40:38] that at the plate commission
>> since it's a board.
[40:44] » We can handle that.
>> You could swear at the same time.
[40:46] » Yes.
[40:49] » Um
>> if if any of them wanted to vote to to
[40:52] to approve them as a as a collective, I
sort
[41:00] » Let me just go ahead with the the four
names I have tonight. Um,
[41:06] on the agenda of four to add to planning
are Jennifer Massie and obviously I
[41:11] don't think everyone could be here
tonight because of whether we they don't
[41:14] have time to go tonight. Uh, Jennifer
Massie, Todd Kelson, Andy Stole, and
[41:18] Stephen Lens
and I believe you met all of them at the
[41:22] workshop meeting.
>> Uh, can I make a motion for you?
[41:26] » If you wanted if if you are inclined to
vote for all four of them collectively
[41:30] at the same time, go ahead and make that
motion.
[41:32] I would like to make a motion that we
accept all four
[41:40] » uh recommendations for planning
commission.
[41:45] So that hitman with the motion he'll
second
[41:52] » that mean you're you're off right
[41:57] » not technically but it is any discussion
on that on the vote on all 40.
[42:05] » So in included in that he's he's made a
motion to so that's that's fine. So we
[42:11] got the motion in a second.
>> We'll take a voice vote.
[42:14] » Okay. Our roll call. Mr. H.
>> Yes.
[42:16] » Mr. Marks.
>> Yes.
[42:17] » Mr. Snder.
>> Yes. Mr. Hill.
[42:19] » Yes.
>> Mr. Hammond.
[42:20] » Yes.
>> Mr. Hall.
[42:21] » Yes.
>> Congratulations.
[42:27] » All right. Uh part H police budget
amendment. And I don't think we had a
[42:33] resolution worked up for this. Did we?
No.
[42:38] » We did. We did discuss at workshop. you
want to just over briefly uh which one?
[42:43] Sorry.
>> Uh the uh the budget amendment for the
[42:46] different the the shuffling that we
>> um so the first one I have is just
[42:52] shuffling some money to create a new
position position that we already
[42:56] funded. Uh we'd be moving it to create
an assistant chief. So we start
[43:01] supervision couple more hours with that
as we grow in the budget just going to
[43:07] come a little.
[43:16] » Gotcha. Uh and what I know we talked
about at the workshop what were those
[43:19] areas that we were wanting to move
money? I know there's like $26,000 in a
[43:22] vehicle.
>> There's 26,000 in vehicles uh to
[43:25] purchase of new vehicles and so we would
be moving about 6,000 out of that
[43:28] account. We can't purchase a vehicle for
that price. So we might later move some
[43:34] performance some other
>> to reallocate that to underline items to
[43:40] make this position and papers and other
things need to be done.
[43:43] » Um
[43:48] any discussion on that council?
>> This um
[43:53] this
I I missed the workshop. I apologize. Uh
[43:59] the position is for
assistant is chief.
[44:07] » So how what's what's the command
structure?
[44:10] » Uh right now we get chief lieutenant
which is officers.
[44:19] » We keep we keep the lieutenant.
>> Yes.
[44:27] The lieutenant was kind of like
[44:32] » he was actually appointed interim chief
of the territory.
[44:35] » No, I know. But I mean like the and
the command structure.
[44:41] » Why do we need lieutenant and the
assistant chief?
[44:44] » The goal is to spread it around a little
more. We can between the lieutenant
[44:47] chief or assistant chief. We can't cover
all areas. So we'll stagger our shifts
[44:52] work
different times to kind of try to cover
[44:55] those things.
[45:00] Hopefully, you know, as the department
grows over time, we already have
[45:04] infrastructure in place. This is a
working position as we all it's not
[45:08] going to be it's not an off position.
It's up to
[45:15] » Mr. Uh Marks, if I may, with kind of the
rationale that was explained to me was
[45:20] in order to give
right now we're operating sometimes with
[45:25] one patrol officer being the only city
officer that's on duty on the ship and
[45:30] and trying to spread that out to have
two units on ship at all times, having
[45:35] that senior officer along with patrol
officer
[45:39] should
decisions need to be made or something
[45:42] like that, there's a higher chain of
command someone to answer to. on each
[45:46] ship by splitting out those the command
structure with the lieutenant assistant
[45:52] chie
officers that are on patrol along with
[45:55] them but having someone to answer
questions to fill in the gray areas that
[45:58] control officers do not know that
that extra layer of accountability
[46:19] I think some more information on
I don't know I I'm not understanding how
[46:26] how that
benefits
[46:32] » um I kind of the same thing just like I
said was it spreading out right now we
[46:37] have plenty of time not
all stagger so it's just kind of instead
[46:42] of having two positions that are same
out
[46:48] just
[46:53] by
shift
[47:02] So right right now there are where
we don't have a supervisor
[47:07] » and this would allow us to expand
everything but it's going to let us move
[47:13] in that direction hopefully as we add
the command assist
[47:20] » I guess
does it need to be an assistant chief or
[47:23] can it be
lieutenant or can it be a
[47:28] sergeant supervisor?
you know, it could be. It's kind of, you
[47:35] know,
[47:39] but we're we're making we're making a
position that's in between
[47:45] chief and lieutenant position.
[47:56] Any
[48:08] other questions, comments, concerns?
>> It's all about money.
[48:14] We got We're budgeting to do it, but our
budget's tight and we got to spend this
[48:20] money like it belongs to the community.
That's all I can say.
[48:24] » If the need were moving. The money is
already there in allocated. We're just
[48:29] moving it around. Not asking for more or
anything tighter. We're just moving some
[48:35] of the dollars around to meet the
chiefs. It's already vision of what the
[48:42] force would look like and kind of think
with our long
[48:50] I've always said I'm not a police
officer any longer, but I've always said
[48:54] I'd rather have
Um,
[48:57] not saying that our officers are not,
but I would rather have
[49:02] a smaller crew of top-notch,
well- paid officers
[49:08] than I would have just paid barely what
we could get them here in the door for
[49:14] them and then hope for the best.
every time that we deal with the that we
[49:20] see a complaint and and I think that's
one thing if I'm trying to speak for him
[49:25] but I kind of get it from the new mayors
want to stop a lot of these complaints
[49:30] and these problems and issues and and I
feel like he's worked very hard doing
[49:35] that. However, you look at just a year
or so ago, we had somebody just cussing
[49:40] one of our citizens like a dog. I hope
that's over. Once you get to that, you
[49:46] know, once you acquire that that level
of officer that you can say, "Okay, we
[49:51] don't do this anymore." You know, I
don't care if you call him an assistant
[49:54] chief or a colonel. You know, if the
money's there, you may have an assistant
[49:59] chief working midnight. That's okay.
They got to cover a ship. But I
[50:03] personally don't care what they call
[50:08] your rank structure, that's up to you. I
just want to make sure that we got, you
[50:12] know, we've got coverage with quality
people and people go in there and do the
[50:16] job. That's where that's where I'm
coming from. Uh I understand it, you
[50:20] know. I mean, it's it's through his
department if he wants a I guess if you
[50:25] wanted to have everybody as assistant
chiefs, you can do that, but it doesn't
[50:28] matter to me what you call. Now,
obviously, that's not what you're going
[50:31] after. But the point I'm making is that
what you call them really doesn't matter
[50:36] outside of your department. thing is is
we can afford to put them on and you
[50:40] know if we we pay everybody you know
those salaries and you know may have to
[50:47] let the city grow before we grow into
the to more and more officers. Does that
[50:51] make sense?
>> I just to kind of share my vision not
[50:54] just in police but in every department
there's the fire, there's the street,
[50:58] there's the water.
This kind of sets us up for that next
[51:02] man up mentality where we're not left in
a gap because
[51:08] Lieutenant Dagger when he stepped in as
inter chief did a great job of filling
[51:12] the gap, but Lieutenant Dagger being the
first to tell you there were things that
[51:15] he didn't know what was going on when
Doug Humber left uh just simply because
[51:21] of that lack of communication, that gap,
and
[51:26] everyone should have someone else that
knows how to do their job because we're
[51:29] all one bit away from not being again.
That goes to police, that goes to fire,
[51:33] that goes to water, that goes to
security. And so in having that
[51:37] structure, everybody kind of knows who
to answer to. Uh should Chief Woods not
[51:42] be here? Should Jim and Joe not be here?
City business can still go on without a
[51:46] gap in coverage because that structure
and have quality people in those spots.
[51:53] » I actually think I saw an assistant
chief the other day fly the road. Is
[51:57] that right?
>> You
[52:02] might speak up. I can't hear.
[52:09] We vote on this.
>> I would entertain a motion to allow the
[52:12] shipment of the money and the creation
of that. I make motion allow sh
[52:34] I was trying to take notes here. You can
look at uh so the motion on the table is
[52:38] to um allow money to be moved from from
certain line items in the 2026 proposed
[52:45] fields budget uh specifically vehicle
maintenance to add to wages uh in the
[52:54] the other sections of the budget to
increase that already proposed I'm being
[53:00] learning here but to increase that
already proposed position to elevate
[53:04] that position in the chain of command to
be a senior or position your assistant
[53:10] chief positions
chief and folks
[53:17] roll Mr. Hig
>> yes
[53:19] » Mr. Marks
>> no
[53:23] » yes
>> Mr. Hill
[53:24] » yes
>> Mr. Hammond
[53:25] » yes
>> Mr. Hall
[53:26] » yes
[53:36] Thank you.
>> We also have one for
[53:41] » Yes. And I think they put it on the same
one that we can address that as well. Go
[53:45] ahead.
>> Uh it's just it's already budgeted item.
[53:47] It's a yearly cost for us.
Bill was
[53:53] $6,800 to act on. It's for our licenses
for body cameras. It shows the data.
[54:00] They still request
just a little spin since it was
[54:05] » already budged it but it is over the
amount.
[54:07] » Yes.
>> Entertain a motion to $6,800 to act on
[54:26] Mr.
>> Yes. Mr. Marks. Yes.
[54:27] » Mr. Schneider. Yes. Sister Hill.
>> Yes. Mr. Canon.
[54:30] » Yes.
>> Mr. Hall.
[54:31] » Yes.
Thank you, Chief.
[54:36] All right. Uh, and then part
[54:41] hurts my heart.
[54:46] Mr. Matthews isn't here. We've got a
working draft. We're still dealing with
[54:51] some issues from uh that are being
addressed from different departments.
[54:57] I will entertain a motion to take this
for his motion to take in mind policy.
[55:28] Yeah, just a voice on that. All in
favor? I
[55:32] » any oppos?
[55:38] » I have the policy manual as I'm just
trying to think this. James Snder as the
[55:42] motion
set.
[55:47] Thank you.
[55:54] So that's table. Uh
in other business, uh Kim Barbsdale, I
[56:00] reached out to her. We're going to try
to push them to next month. That's some
[56:03] kids we wanted to recognize that were on
the agenda for 4 obviously the weather
[56:08] put that out. So we try to put that on
agenda. Uh do have a couple of gentlemen
[56:13] here tonight. Um
let's J. Yeah, I got right here.
[56:21] » Yes, I was going to say with half
>> inch street, they got some numbers.
[56:28] » Step on up.
[56:32] » Good evening, council.
>> And uh to introduce myself to the
[56:36] council since the last time I was here,
my name is Joe Moore and I'm with Half
[56:39] Associates and been the project manager
on the main street overlay project. So,
[56:45] uh, Jimmy had asked us to to come and
and present to you all tonight. Um, said
[56:50] that y'all may have a couple questions
about the project and and I thought
[56:53] where I'd start is just a general
overview on on where we're at. Um, the
[56:58] contractors uh largely finished the
scope of work u the the plan included
[57:04] out there. Um, and where we're at now is
is working through a punch list of items
[57:09] we think he needs to address.
So, how about main street? Yes, sir. The
[57:15] main street overlay. So, uh a majority
of that work is finished and like I
[57:19] said, we're going through we've reviewed
it and uh created a punch list of items
[57:23] for uh the contractor to address. Uh
talked through them those items with him
[57:28] actually this morning and he said he had
no problem uh taking care of those
[57:32] things. So, um, uh, he's going to work
with his crews obviously with whether,
[57:37] you know, if he get back out and work on
addressing, uh, items on that punch
[57:41] list.
>> What are some of the things that he's
[57:44] got?
>> There, uh, are a couple a couple of soft
[57:49] spots in the gravel shoulder that have
run it up uh, from, you know, various
[57:55] » shoulder,
>> right? It's going to shore them up.
[57:58] There's there's a place near uh, Miller
Street. It's on the south side of the
[58:02] project. There's standing water uh on
the long edge of the road. It's probably
[58:05] why the gravel shoulder is a little bit
soft. Uh went back and reviewed the
[58:10] plans. We' asked it to extend that
ditching closer to Miller than he had
[58:14] done. So just needs to come and kind of
clean out the ditch and help uh drain
[58:20] off the standing water and hopefully
that'll help.
[58:23] » I drove that the other day and
it's that is that normal
[58:30] » unevenness of the of the street. So it
it's an overlay project. So it it's
[58:35] largely working with the existing grades
that are there. We're equipping, you
[58:38] know, blow back on top of that.
[58:43] » And we had some shoulder cracking
on the edge of the pavement that
[58:51] let him
tell you about it.
[58:55] » Right. So, um, there are a couple places
where we see some some cracks about this
[59:01] big along the the edges of the road. A
lot of them seem to be on the east side
[59:06] of the road where you have a ditch uh
right up against the road. I did bring
[59:12] uh an exhibit and I I'll pass this out
that helps
[59:18] illustrate what I'm going to talk about.
So, I'm not drawing a picture up in the
[59:22] air. Uh
and and and the reason I did this is
[59:27] it's there's a couple places where the
shoulder cracking is uh bad enough. I
[59:32] think he needs to come out and address
that. Um there's some places where the
[59:35] shoulder cracking is is very minor. And
I think that that's what you're going to
[59:40] see in an overlay project. And and I'll
kind of describe um that with these
[59:46] exhibits here.
[59:50] I'll talk through these. These have a a
page. It was inserted in the middle of
[1:00:17] also
[1:00:22] come in a little glad.
[1:00:30] » Yes, Jimmy.
>> We're working through a Well, I'll I'll
[1:00:36] grab those numbers. So, uh, as Jimmy was
saying that the project is projected on
[1:00:41] the budget, the original contract amount
was 777,000
[1:00:46] and some change. The, uh, if you recall,
I was here to ask for a change order on
[1:00:51] a waterline relocation and an additional
head wall. That was $28,300.
[1:00:56] So, that brought that change brought the
total contract amount up to $85,000
[1:01:02] and some change uh, total installations
to date. So that's that's everything
[1:01:08] that they've uh invoiced for to date.
Like I mentioned, uh the project's
[1:01:12] finished. We're working on correcting
some things. 773,000
[1:01:16] with some change. So what that means is
the project is about 3,800 below the
[1:01:21] original contract amount um or 32,000
under where the contract amount was
[1:01:26] today with the change order. So, so
essentially the change order uh you know
[1:01:30] was free if you will and the um uh there
was a little bit of savings on top of
[1:01:36] that.
So uh to talk through
[1:01:42] » Yeah.
>> to talk through the the packet I just
[1:01:47] passed out.
Um it the reason I did this is just to
[1:01:51] to kind of explain asphalt and I
apologize if if you know some of youall
[1:01:54] already know this and and you know um
you know this may be somewhat boring but
[1:01:59] but asphalt pavement uh there's a
diagram in here and this this describes
[1:02:05] the general crosssection. So if we cut
an asphalt road in half just a local
[1:02:09] street this is generally what it what
that crosssection would look like. It's
[1:02:14] got a a subgrade a aggregate base layer
and then as you work your way up an
[1:02:19] aggre an asphalt surface layer. That
asphalt surface layer is what you see.
[1:02:25] Uh the uh base layer and the subgrade
are where the the strength of an asphalt
[1:02:32] pave road are. The surface layer is your
smooth driving course. It uses a smaller
[1:02:38] aggregate. So it's not using inch and a
half stone or anything like that. It's a
[1:02:43] it's a small aggregate and that's what
makes an asphalt road smooth. Uh the
[1:02:49] strength though that that surface that
asphalt surface doesn't really have any
[1:02:53] strength to it by itself. You can you
know if it's on the edge of the road it
[1:02:56] put any kind of weight on it it'll
crumble. Those the base and subgrade
[1:03:01] layer where the strength of the road
are. And so this cross-section
[1:03:04] demonstrates that each layer as you go
down is wider than the layer above it.
[1:03:09] And that's to help disperse the load
that's applied to it out. When you when
[1:03:14] you overlay an asphalt road, and I've
attempted to draw that in here with with
[1:03:18] red, that overlay, what you're doing is
putting another layer of asphalt surface
[1:03:22] right on top of the surface you had
before. And so it doesn't have that step
[1:03:27] out and and when you get onto the very
edge and you you run a load of the very
[1:03:31] edge, it's it's likely to crack. Um, the
other thing it'll do is it'll it'll
[1:03:36] reflect if crack, you know, the cracks
that were in the road before. That's
[1:03:40] that's the nature of it's it's to be
expected with a with an asphalt overlay
[1:03:46] type project. Uh, so this edge cracking,
what I'm trying to say is something uh
[1:03:51] I'm not too shocked to see u especially
uh if we've had any kind of load applied
[1:03:58] to the edge of the road. if someone's
run off, you know, to pull over um run a
[1:04:02] trailer off the road. Some of this is
where we've seen the gravel rudded and
[1:04:06] uh and so that's it's uh not too
surprising to me. There's a a couple of
[1:04:12] photos of this packet. Uh this first one
was the or this this one here that I
[1:04:16] inserted into the packet was just to
kind of demonstrate that u principle I
[1:04:21] was just talking about. This is an area
where that you can see the asphalt
[1:04:25] overlay
uh without the gravel back fill. This is
[1:04:29] where they they did a point repair and
and this shows that there's there's a
[1:04:34] 2-in uh lip where that asphalt overlay
was was installed. Um so that was just a
[1:04:40] real kind of a live photo of what the
cross-section shows. And then the next
[1:04:45] the next the last couple photos in the
packet would to show the existing
[1:04:50] street. And
uh you can see that there's some edge
[1:04:56] cracking on the existing street.
And so with this
[1:05:01] again, yeah, that this layer was placed
and and it's uh it may mirror what was
[1:05:07] going on underneath the existing
pavement, especially if there's a load
[1:05:11] applied to it. So, uh, to kind of
summarize, there's there's a a list of
[1:05:16] things we've asked the contractor to
come back and work on. And and then
[1:05:20] these certain items right here, uh,
these these smaller airline cracks. Um,
[1:05:24] I just I don't think it's, you know,
it's anything that the contractor did or
[1:05:28] didn't do. It's just the nature of this
type of project.
[1:05:32] » Mr. Moore, I'm going to ask larger scope
of it. in the original proposal with a
[1:05:37] contract that was signed. What was the
scope of work to be done on the base
[1:05:42] layer? Because I'm asking for you could
look by the way this extra exhibit here.
[1:05:49] In case you didn't know, this is the
finished product.
[1:05:52] » This is the overlay road here. Uh there
were there were essentially two small
[1:05:57] hatches on each end of Northwoods
subdivision and this is where they came
[1:06:01] in and cut out and overlaid a larger
stretch of it. uh cut into the lines
[1:06:05] they had painted which I'm sure in the
remedies as well.
[1:06:08] » That's on the list. Yes, sir.
>> As is back filling that area with
[1:06:11] gravel.
>> Yes. Because this is where you'd turn
[1:06:13] out. Not that it would be on it much
because it's where we would turn into
[1:06:16] the subdivision.
>> Yes, sir.
[1:06:17] » But if you'll look down that street if
you vision with me, see this winess? And
[1:06:23] I guess my question was was there any
shimming originally in the proposal to
[1:06:27] bring that subgrade the old road up to a
flatter road prior to the overlay? Uh,
[1:06:34] no sir. It was a It was uh, you know,
just purely an overlay job. There wasn't
[1:06:38] a shimming involved with it. No sir.
>> Is it a 2inch overlay?
[1:06:42] » Yes sir.
>> What was your question?
[1:06:46] » How thick the overlay was? 2 in. How
thick the overlay was
[1:06:56] on a job of this size.
Just off the top of your head,
[1:07:02] I know there machines that you can run
across to level the existing surface.
[1:07:08] Uh, and this apparently I could see from
here on this photograph that that
[1:07:12] there's some people places there that
are not level. How much would it add to
[1:07:16] a project of this size to have that
machine go in and to level that surface
[1:07:21] as mayor had just mentioned to bring it
back to a level surface before we shim?
[1:07:26] » It's called shimming. Thank you.
shim this entire project
[1:07:31] » with the existing surface
>> prior to if we started prior
[1:07:35] » delay we just say if we just started
over again and we for future reference
[1:07:41] » the shimming of this would it cost
20% or 50% more project
[1:07:47] » no s not on the magnitude of 50% more
you're down closer to the the 20%
[1:07:53] » 20% which seems to me would be
apparently from looking at this roaded
[1:07:57] not evenings that it would have been a
good investment for us to spend that
[1:08:01] additional 20% to do that. Something
that the council may look forward to and
[1:08:05] Jimmy, we may consider that and I think
you just talked about that on center
[1:08:09] street. This is right here. If I saw
this is the new job and that was my
[1:08:13] neighborhood, I say looks like we've got
a roller coaster here.
[1:08:19] Let me be fair. It's much better than it
was.
[1:08:24] but better than it was. It's the
standard that we're looking for when we
[1:08:27] spent $800,000 on a street project.
And I guess my thought going forward is
[1:08:33] two years from now, is it going to be
better than it was? uh going forward as
[1:08:38] the agent I mean there not trying to put
them on the spot but are there things
[1:08:42] that maybe we should have included in a
in a proposal long enough that maybe we
[1:08:47] didn't looking forward that we'll not
want to include in the future to where
[1:08:51] we have a better outcome of product in
the end
[1:08:55] » there there's uh well you know there's
there's certainly a lot of things you
[1:09:00] can do you know to an asphalt road um
you know
[1:09:06] doing an overlay is is uh probably your
one of your not I wouldn't even say that
[1:09:12] there's a lot of things you can do to
preserve
[1:09:15] » preserve a pavement you can come in and
seal coat it uh you know there's things
[1:09:19] like that and you get into an overlay
there's a there's several things you can
[1:09:24] do you know even above that you can come
in and reclaim it you pulverize that
[1:09:30] base and restabilize it and put it down
and that that gives you a brand new base
[1:09:34] it takes away from from a lot of that
reflective cracking that you may see um
[1:09:41] the the order of magnitude of cost as
you as you continue to go up that um
[1:09:45] just increased. So we we were approached
by doing an overlay job and that's you
[1:09:49] know
>> certainly and that's that's no asphalt
[1:09:52] expert. I just relying on you guys as
our engineers to tell us what we got and
[1:09:57] what we'll pay it if we got our money's
worth their efficiency looking at
[1:10:00] remedies on the back end.
>> They're they're uh I would say it's you
[1:10:06] know, if y'all came out and said, and in
fact, we did this with, you know, with
[1:10:09] Jimmy, um, if you came out and said, you
know, we want to do X, and we didn't
[1:10:16] think it was appropriate, um, we would
have had that conversation. Uh, asphalt
[1:10:21] overlay jobs on roads such as these is
is very, very common. U, we did have
[1:10:26] places where we talked to Jimmy. He
said, "You've got um some base failures
[1:10:30] in certain spots, and we think you need
to go and fix those ahead of them paving
[1:10:34] because you're going to end up with a
with a bad failure, you know, within,
[1:10:38] you know, months of of doing the job."
And so Jimmy did that uh ahead of the
[1:10:43] project. And uh so, you know, I think uh
I I would be, you know, I think the job
[1:10:51] was done right for the type of job it
was done. Um, will you have reflective
[1:10:56] cracking? Sure. You know, that's not
uncommon on it. Asphalt roads crack. Uh,
[1:11:01] the more you do to the subgrade in the
base, the the the the least amount of
[1:11:07] cracking you may get, but but they will
still crack. And that little little
[1:11:11] crack along the edge, um, you know, I
don't I don't think is something the
[1:11:16] city should.
>> Certainly. And I just listen, may be
[1:11:18] unfair, but I drive this road every day.
That's where I live. So, I kind of kept
[1:11:22] an eye on the project. Uh,
I would ask questions and before you
[1:11:27] answer, here's why I would ask why. Were
your engineers on site the whole
[1:11:32] project? And here's the reason I asked.
They spent months and I know they were
[1:11:37] waiting on the water line relocation and
and the cover the heads the head walls
[1:11:42] being board and all that sort of thing.
Um,
[1:11:46] but it was months ongoing and then it
was even I from my position like when's
[1:11:51] this thing going to pop? What are they
waiting on now? And I don't want to
[1:11:55] these are anecdotal timelines because I
don't have them reporting. I could uh
[1:12:00] but it seemed like they paved on a
Thursday. They came and put some gravel
[1:12:04] down on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday on
my way back from church. They were
[1:12:07] painting lines on all just prior to the
end of the year. Like they were like,
[1:12:11] "Hey, let's get this one done and get a
check."
[1:12:14] I'm not dogging the the contractor at
all, but that's the appearance that I
[1:12:19] got to put, which makes me think that if
we if we spend a month doing prep work,
[1:12:25] it's like, okay, we're trying to do
right and then in a week's time we went
[1:12:28] in and threw it that were threw the rest
of it in. So, hey, we're going to submit
[1:12:34] an ambulance, we're bound to a loan book
something or to rush something that
[1:12:39] maybe didn't need to be rushed. Maybe
that's a fast part of the project. I
[1:12:42] don't know that scope of it. I do know
that that week after Christmas the
[1:12:46] shoulders had extreme failure when Jimmy
Joe throw a load down they s four inches
[1:12:51] in sponsor more. I understand that some
of that's from subbase but when you get
[1:12:55] the job it seems to me like you can go
out and look and say hey that subbase is
[1:12:58] low we might have to add a little more
in to to have this the final product
[1:13:03] what they're asking for and scope of
this contract. Uh, I know when they were
[1:13:06] painting lines, I haven't got out and
inspected the lines, but it looked like
[1:13:09] the gravel from the shoulders were
barely even put it off the asphalt
[1:13:13] before they painted the lines and
potentially even painted over gravel. I
[1:13:16] don't know if they had a sweeper truck
or what. Again, they were paint lines on
[1:13:19] a Sunday. I don't know. What I do know
is they have gone out and put some more
[1:13:23] rip wrap and Ford flowable fill on that
concrete on that with hopes that it'll
[1:13:27] hold in the main flow area there because
that was an upstate
[1:13:32] just from the surface kind of the smell
test to it.
[1:13:36] has me with the impression that cop
stinks.
[1:13:38] » So there's there's a bunch of questions.
>> There were a lot
[1:13:44] just to show you my perception.
>> So let me know if I if I don't answer
[1:13:47] one of them. Uh our inspector uh yes, we
had an inspector out on site. Uh we we
[1:13:53] were part-time inspection. Um so they
were out on site. Uh did they catch
[1:13:58] every little thing that the contractor
did? You know, no, they were they were
[1:14:01] part-time. Um they did they were out
here for the entirety of all the asphalt
[1:14:07] paving portion of it. Uh that's a you
know it's a pretty crucial piece. That's
[1:14:12] the the main objective of the job. Um so
they were out for the for the entirety
[1:14:16] of that. Um there are times where they
weren't on site because you maybe they
[1:14:21] weren't like you said they were they'd
be off for a couple of days and then
[1:14:23] they're back on weren'tified that that
activity would be going on. Uh so uh you
[1:14:28] know I don't believe they're out here
for the the striping on a Sunday. Um, I
[1:14:32] think that kind of happened without us
knowing about it. Uh, they weren't out
[1:14:36] here for the installation of the gravel.
Again, that that happened on a uh, you
[1:14:41] know, without prior notice. Um, let's
see. The asphalt overlay going in over a
[1:14:47] matter of days. I believe it was two or
three. I do have daily reports so that
[1:14:50] that document these things. I'd be glad
to to send them to the city um, to show
[1:14:55] this. Uh, but they um, that yes, that
that's normal. uh they can get in and do
[1:15:01] the overlay in a matter of a couple days
on a project this big. Redstone's a big
[1:15:05] contractor. They've got the the uh
manpower and equipment to get in and
[1:15:09] pave that road quickly. Uh so they so
they did do that. Uh the gravel
[1:15:15] shoulders, we did have some concern with
that. Like I said, we weren't out here
[1:15:18] watching that. Uh we didn't uh feel that
they compacted it well. Um, you know,
[1:15:24] Jimmy did some proof hurling on the edge
and and found some ruts as you as you
[1:15:28] mentioned uh right around the holidays
right before after Christmas. Uh, they
[1:15:33] came back out and added gravel and
recompacted those areas. We've found a
[1:15:37] few more spots also recompacting those.
Uh, like I mentioned, there's a I think
[1:15:43] some of the the the gravel ruts that
we've seen are not just from the uh they
[1:15:47] didn't show up when when Jimmy proof
rolled them. Uh but some of it's there's
[1:15:52] some sand and water in the ditch. As I
mentioned, we've asked them to come back
[1:15:54] and and recreate that ditch and try to
get water away so that area looks so
[1:15:58] soupy. Uh the other area is the we
called for uh uh the gravel shoulder.
[1:16:06] You know, there's two foot of gravel
shoulder and sometimes that encroached
[1:16:10] on a ditch and so we called for
embankment to be placed to help shore
[1:16:13] that up and then taper that down,
compact it down into the the ditch flow
[1:16:17] line. Um, there's a few places where
that wasn't done and that's on the punch
[1:16:20] list to hopefully shore up that shoulder
so it's not on a sheer drop off.
[1:16:26] » And let me be clear, we're not trying to
beat anybody out of anything that
[1:16:30] » I'm just explaining everything. Yes,
sir.
[1:16:32] » We just we want to make sure we're
getting our money's worth as a city for
[1:16:35] our citizens.
>> Yes, sir.
[1:16:37] » Based on the the water scope provided
>> and and the uh the rip wrap with the the
[1:16:43] flow of fill in it. Uh so that and that
goes back into that waterline area. What
[1:16:48] what we had in that area before uh was
uh head walls with uh a short wing wall.
[1:16:54] They stubbed out on both box culvers.
The uh when we added the gravel
[1:17:00] shoulders, we moved all the box covers
out and rebuilt the head walls in that
[1:17:05] area. Uh, as you all recall, we had to
relocate a water line because the the
[1:17:10] extension of the box covered and head
wall was going to conflict with the
[1:17:13] water line. So, we pushed the water line
out. There's a sanitary sewer manhole on
[1:17:19] the outside of the water line. So, we
couldn't push the water line uh and then
[1:17:22] we have right strength. So, we didn't
push the water line any further than was
[1:17:25] needed to install the box. What that did
do is limit us with the ability of
[1:17:30] installing a big wing wall back on the
box. Uh so it was a straight flush head
[1:17:35] wall and talking with Jimmy after that
was done he he you know he mentioned
[1:17:39] that water uh goes through one of the uh
head walls one of the culberts on the
[1:17:44] regular basis but when you get a high
flow event kind of kind of jumps over
[1:17:48] and it'll overflow through the other
culbert. He said when that happens you
[1:17:51] tend to get water shorting up there. So
he was concerned about the edge of the
[1:17:54] road. Um where we left it was is let's
talk about you there's a couple options.
[1:18:00] We could install rip wrap in that area.
we could look at trying to install a a
[1:18:04] head wall, solid head wall all the way
across from boxer to box cover. I said,
[1:18:08] you know, one is is your most
cost-effective option and the other is
[1:18:11] your is your uh is a is a more costly
option. I said, let's get, you know,
[1:18:16] this is where it's at today. Let's
finish the job super route with a budget
[1:18:19] and have that conversation. Um, in the
meantime, you know, we mentioned that to
[1:18:24] the contractor, didn't give him
direction either way. And on the
[1:18:26] meantime, he came out and installed rip
wrap the way he did. Uh Jimmy and I
[1:18:30] looked at it and said, "You know, this
sitting the way we even want this rip
[1:18:33] wrap installed. We didn't really have a
conversation about this." He goes,
[1:18:36] "Yeah, I know, but don't worry about it.
I had this extra rip wrap. I'm just
[1:18:39] trying to help the city out. Let me, you
know, there's no charge. Let me just get
[1:18:42] it in there."
>> We talked to him about uh you know, he
[1:18:46] hadn't done it right. So, he decided uh
in working with Jimmy, let's let's put
[1:18:50] flowable fill to try to shore that up
and make it make it more sound. So, that
[1:18:55] that kind of went in without a lot of uh
discussion. um you know it is the most
[1:19:00] cost effective method of doing that um
um you know given the circumstance of
[1:19:05] all the utilities and everything in that
area. So so that's how that uh uh got to
[1:19:10] where it is today. Yes sir.
>> Do I have any additional questions?
[1:19:15] » Who was it called director?
>> Great stuff.
[1:19:20] And I think it's going to come down to
once the punch list is completed,
[1:19:23] invoices submitted, if we've got any
more questions at that point, we can ask
[1:19:27] because now it seems like we're bringing
up points that maybe are being
[1:19:30] addressed. So
>> yes, sir, we're going to work through
[1:19:33] the punch list. Uh they have submitted a
uh pay estimate. Uh that's what we're
[1:19:39] using to develop the cost. I wrote out
to you to the council tonight. Uh that's
[1:19:44] for uh items completed. it does hold
with uh retainage of about $58,000 that
[1:19:51] that that's written into the contract to
withhold that retainage for addressing
[1:19:56] punch list type items. And so uh you
know it was our intention to uh we'd be
[1:20:03] glad to do this either way is submit
that one pay estimate, work through
[1:20:06] these items with the retainage uh in
mind. Uh or we can we can work out the
[1:20:11] items and then and then submit the pay
estimate uh after those are addressed.
[1:20:17] When you're doing a road
such as this one,
[1:20:23] would it not be something that's kind of
automatic to
[1:20:28] want to do what we could to make that
road smooth and it's level or is that
[1:20:34] just something we just
I drove down it this week a couple of
[1:20:41] times and uh I noticed it's pretty wavy.
maybe,
[1:20:47] you know, and then the cracks and then I
guess just right after they put the
[1:20:51] pavement down
seems like over, am I wrong over there
[1:20:56] in front of Northwoods, there was almost
like a a big soft spot there and stuff
[1:21:00] like that.
>> Yeah, there's some there were dips worse
[1:21:04] dips in the original
better than it was.
[1:21:09] again
in my mind not the standard when when
[1:21:13] you pay 100,000 like man I'm on a new
road is what I'm I guess is where what
[1:21:18] maybe my expectations are where the
contract was I didn't sign the contract
[1:21:22] but Jimmy you want to help me out here
with
[1:21:26] » yeah
we wouldn't build the three well
[1:21:30] » true
>> you know so
[1:21:36] if we' have shimmed that whole road you
know the the asphalt would have probably
[1:21:44] double
got all of
[1:21:49] » the waves out.
>> The waves out. Yeah. And
[1:21:54] at that time, you know, we was already
looking at a pretty good size project.
[1:22:02] » You said around 20%, right?
I yeah I don't I don't know the number
[1:22:09] to be I mean
to shim it what you're going to do is
[1:22:13] look at essentially what you' had to do
is look at every valley between high
[1:22:16] points and and add layers of asphalt
until you got it smooth.
[1:22:21] » You may have had six inches of asphalt
sort of in 20 foot section you may have
[1:22:28] had two inches
>> well
[1:22:31] » to really floated it out shimmed it out.
I don't think we're talking about
[1:22:35] different things because double the
asphalt may have only been 20% of the
[1:22:39] project.
>> I I'll say this, out of the
[1:22:45] the total project had about $230,000
of uh asphalt overlay in it. So, you
[1:22:52] know, you could look at adding 50% to
that easily. So, it could be another
[1:22:56] $100,000 $150,000. Hard hard, you know,
it's hard to it's impossible for us to
[1:23:02] predict. They they'd have come out and
and shimmed it until they got it.
[1:23:05] » Again, I said before,
>> not looking anybody up anything,
[1:23:10] » right?
>> I just want to make sure before we pay
[1:23:14] any invoices that we in fact got
>> everything we asked for based on the
[1:23:18] contract.
>> Yes, sir. That's that's the way this job
[1:23:22] uh from day one was. It's going to be a
>> an overlay job. It's a it's a local
[1:23:26] street, you know, speed limit.
>> Yes, sir. Now, I'll I'll admit,
[1:23:33] you know,
I didn't know a lot about it, the
[1:23:39] contracting it out, because I've always
pretty much done it myself, you know, in
[1:23:45] house other than laying the ass off far
as the prep work.
[1:23:51] And
so, I've learned a lot on this project,
[1:23:58] too.
you know, going forward to another
[1:24:01] project. And it
I don't know, it seemed to me like
[1:24:09] we're both learning something on this.
I know he's the engineer,
[1:24:16] but
still from the very start,
[1:24:23] you know, it
we should have had it served. There's so
[1:24:28] many different things that we should
have done in it.
[1:24:34] regular blueprint.
You know it you
[1:24:40] uh to answer the questions on the levels
of the street
[1:24:48] ahead. So you accurately bidded the
project without
[1:24:53] making up numbers. So you you needed to
go and do a full tobo survey uh on on a
[1:24:59] mile long road. That in itself can cost
a lot a lot of money and is not standard
[1:25:06] for just an overlay job on a local city
street. Uh that that's it's a
[1:25:11] significant cost item to a project. But
it's I even know the answer.
[1:25:14] » A balance between economically
feasible efficiency is that between
[1:25:20] feasible
>> and what we need.
[1:25:23] » Uh
I'm not saying the whole road needed to
[1:25:26] be shimmed as a perfect zero grade road.
That's not
[1:25:30] » that would been pretty much what would
have had to done to pull the
[1:25:38] you know made it smooth.
>> I'm not an asphalt guy. I'm not a road
[1:25:41] guy you jo
That's the only road that I can remember
[1:25:46] being on anywhere around here. It's you
know you go along there like that. But
[1:25:51] don't go
>> sir.
[1:25:54] » Some Well, I had
uh I I don't expect this other project
[1:25:59] over here on Center Street to be that
way.
[1:26:01] » No,
>> it don't need to be that way.
[1:26:03] » No,
>> but I don't want to go do a top too
[1:26:06] survey and do all that stuff. It just
needs to be right and smooth.
[1:26:10] » Doesn't seem to be like this. That's
being
[1:26:14] » I've got two streets in town. That's
that one and Paradise Circle.
[1:26:21] » Is that a new street over Paradise
Circle? You know,
[1:26:23] » we spent a lot of money a few years back
on
[1:26:27] completely digging out undercutting
3 and 1/2 4T
[1:26:34] to make it right.
Compacted.
[1:26:40] It's still
[1:26:44] for some reason it's still
you know it's got
[1:26:49] I don't know if you call it kind of the
natural role to it.
[1:26:54] » So Mr. Moore do you have an invoice
tonight? Is that what you were saying?
[1:26:58] » Not to present to council. I was letting
you know where this the project status
[1:27:01] is.
>> Yes sir. But you're saying that invoice
[1:27:04] would be roughly $715,000 holding back
the 58,000 to complete the $773,000.
[1:27:10] » Yes, sir. Roughly.
>> Thank you, sir. We'll get that invoice
[1:27:14] and hear from your punch list. I think
we'll be able to move forward.
[1:27:18] » But all the roads on that
overlay project, they're not like North
[1:27:25] M.
>> And you're doing the prep work on this
[1:27:27] as well.
[1:27:31] Be smart. Yes. I want you to drive.
[1:27:38] » Thank you. Thank you, Jim. Thank you
very much.
[1:27:39] » Thank you all.
[1:27:44] » All right. Another engineer engineering
firm.
[1:27:56] » Yes, I believe this. And this is in
reference to the uh the sewer project.
[1:28:03] The council has a resolution in place to
continue forward with the force main
[1:28:08] project at Conway for
we I say we discussed it at the workshop
[1:28:14] but we kind of thrown some caution out
there based on the rate that Conway for
[1:28:18] presented u as a as a perism rate and
and other things. We discussed it at the
[1:28:24] workshop. Mr. marks at all uh in that
workshop, but that's why we're going to
[1:28:29] kind of overview the see if we can kind
of get some direction going forward.
[1:28:33] » Yeah. So, I guess 12 months ago, 18
months ago, probably now check back when
[1:28:40] y'all approve the moving forward with
the pump station enforcement project. We
[1:28:44] started down that pathway and we were
going to go ANRC funding. We did that
[1:28:50] seeking infrastructure money last fall
meeting. You did receive an offer, but
[1:28:58] the offer was loan only, no grant
component, no infrastructure component.
[1:29:03] So loan only at 4% for 20 years um for
11.5 million that would fund the
[1:29:10] project. You have to accept that offer
by Friday uh 31st. So essentially it's
[1:29:18] the 30th Friday. So you'd have to accept
that offer by Friday. We have been
[1:29:23] asking for a definitive rate per
thousand gallon hallway corporation for
[1:29:29] about a year. So once you got the offer
we you know said hey we we really need
[1:29:34] this number. They responded I think
right before the count of the county
[1:29:38] workshop a couple weeks ago at 650 was
the initial. Um, and I responded and
[1:29:45] they brought it actually down to four $4
per thousand. Um, so that's what this
[1:29:53] top chart that's on the top represents.
It took that $4 per thousand
[1:30:00] um and used an assumed average daily
flow, calculating the annual cost at $4
[1:30:08] per thousand and calculated the
additional revenue required for your
[1:30:13] sewer rate to cover that. And we looked
at uh the water component there is that
[1:30:20] if you added a fixed charge on the water
$5 per month or $10 per month or $15 per
[1:30:27] month on the water the remaining would
be funded by sewer alone. Obviously you
[1:30:33] have about twice as many more than that
>> maybe
[1:30:40] I have to look you have 3200 water, 1200
sewer customers. say he had more than
[1:30:46] twice as many water customers. Uh so
this gives you the breakdown between
[1:30:51] each the common core compation and force
main project versus um looking back at a
[1:30:58] wastewater treatment plant project. Now
there are a couple issues.
[1:31:04] We he gave us the go-ahhead 18 months
ago or so. We've got everything
[1:31:08] designed. We've got health department
approval. We've got all the easements
[1:31:13] ready to send out and we've gotten all
the updated title search done. So, we're
[1:31:18] ready to send easements before we even
have the offer letter. Um, we're just
[1:31:23] waiting on that. So, you've already
spent that money. The other thing I did
[1:31:28] check with uh Conway um Fner County
rather um with Tom Anderson and he did
[1:31:37] confer that you will not receive any
additional funding if you abandon the
[1:31:43] money that's been allocated. The issue
is they had to have those funds
[1:31:47] obligated by December 31st 2024
which y'all signed a contract I think in
[1:31:52] November October previous May of 2024.
going towards the force management
[1:31:58] project. So because those were obligated
that way, they can't retroactively
[1:32:03] change that. They they've got a catch
all project that they already had
[1:32:09] approved. If any if any projects, you
know, undercut or whatever, they had
[1:32:14] additional money left over, they have a
way to spend it. So they will not they
[1:32:20] will not allow you to carry any of this
county money remaining over like you
[1:32:26] know if you don't if you don't purchase
the eence that's going to be $800,000
[1:32:30] you can't carry that into waste water
treatment project.
[1:32:37] Um so we've been talking about you know
different
[1:32:43] feasibility here of each project. you
know, $4 is what they said now, $4 per
[1:32:50] thousand. And they do they did mention a
2% increase, annual increase. So, that
[1:32:55] would be on top of that. And then, you
know, you we you could possibly
[1:33:00] negotiate maybe lock in that $4 in, but
it's not they're probably not going to
[1:33:05] lock in very long. So, if they start at
650, it's like how long it take to get
[1:33:10] 650? We were basing all of our
preliminary numbers and stuff. We were
[1:33:15] looking at kind of the break even cost.
I was assuming it would be around $3
[1:33:20] somewhere in that range. And I was
looking at their automated financials
[1:33:24] and their treatment plant cost. Um you
could look at their financials. It
[1:33:30] breaks out their wastewater treatment
plant cost. It's not broken up by plant.
[1:33:34] So it includes two plants. You don't
want to be contributing to one a larger
[1:33:38] plant, $2 value. But I just did some
math of the envelope, you know,
[1:33:42] calculations, making some assumptions. I
don't have all the data, but uh the 650
[1:33:48] was way out of the ballpark. Well, kind
of 10,000 foot view based on what I've
[1:33:53] seen, we would as far as the capacity of
their
[1:33:58] we would be, if I did my math right,
roughly 116th of that capacity.
[1:34:03] » It should be less than 5% of that
capacity.
[1:34:05] » Yeah. 116th 120th of that capacity. and
they're trying to bill us at closer to
[1:34:10] 1/8 of their operating cost.
>> I mean, yeah, I, you know, I expected it
[1:34:14] to be maybe, you know, three time, you
know, two to three times um the grow
[1:34:21] rated ODM cost because, you know, you're
not you're not really impacting any of
[1:34:27] their infrastructure other than the
treatment plant itself.
[1:34:30] » Um, so that was kind of how I was basing
my $3 figure. Um, obviously I was
[1:34:38] » and they're roughly charging us what
they would charge customers for.
[1:34:40] » I mean, they they did drop it to $4, but
I mean I guess obviously everybody's
[1:34:45] down concerned. How can you drop from
$650 to $4 overnight? Uh, so that's
[1:34:51] maybe more more of a concern. They just
>> So basically, if you're willing to pay
[1:34:56] for it, they'll take it. But really,
they really don't want
[1:34:59] » Yeah. I mean, that's honestly that's
when I saw the 650. I was like, they're
[1:35:03] trackless. But they did come day off.
>> Here's my concern.
[1:35:08] I've seen this, man. I've seen more
illustrations than I care ever seen in
[1:35:13] my life.
[1:35:17] And this is the way I feel. Whether I'm
right or wrong, I don't know. But the
[1:35:21] way I feel is
out of three mayors now, there's been
[1:35:26] one that's actually took the bull by the
horns and read the contracts and figured
[1:35:30] it out to where actually can feel
somewhat comfortable with with a
[1:35:35] proposal.
>> And I'd like to I hope we can cast out
[1:35:40] all the stuff that we don't need and
focus on what we do need.
[1:35:45] » I hope that piece of paper I just gave
you will do that if you if you if you'll
[1:35:48] just
>> work with you for a sec.
[1:35:51] » Carry on. I'm listening. I'm all ears.
>> So that piece of paper, it's hard to
[1:35:54] tell what's front and back, but look at
there's a table on the top of the front.
[1:35:57] Those highlighted rates are where we are
at their $4 per thousand.
[1:36:02] Those monthly increase numbers. Uh
no matter how we disperse it to
[1:36:09] customers, whether it's solely water,
water, sewer, solely sewer,
[1:36:14] that's the amount
per customer that we're going to have to
[1:36:18] increase a bill per month of the debt
service per month. Uh the on the left
[1:36:24] side you'll see that's the force main
project. That's that's right now where
[1:36:28] we're headed and where we're voting
toward. On the right, you'll see that
[1:36:32] would be the wastewater treatment plant,
the STR project if we kept it in house
[1:36:36] and did it here. So, you'll notice about
an $8 savings. Um, just there
[1:36:43] to keep it in house. Now,
I want to clear the air because most
[1:36:48] everyone at this table knows that I was
a councilman that voted nay on this to
[1:36:53] begin with. This is not a vendetta
against that. Fully ready to sign. What
[1:36:58] the council had voted on I think back in
August was was the last vote on that may
[1:37:04] have been before may have been in May.
I've got the minutes for the meeting.
[1:37:09] I wanted to pump the brakes on this
before I signed that intent letter with
[1:37:12] ANRC
because we're already going to have to
[1:37:16] go up on customer rates. But what we're
looking at is paying even more as
[1:37:20] customer rates to give up the local
control of our series
[1:37:25] for the foreseeable future. You're going
to have to pay on this 10% more up to
[1:37:30] 12% more to give up our local control.
Send it to Como Court and some of the
[1:37:35] more costings and I spelled this out in
the notes that I gave you in the
[1:37:39] workshop meeting. If we go to combo
court, they could immediately call our
[1:37:43] hand on our collection system that
requires about $5 million worth of
[1:37:46] improvements
per the contract. They could immediately
[1:37:50] say, "Hey, oh, by the way, you need to
take out another 5 million debt service
[1:37:53] to fix those pump stations."
>> Well, they were willing to take that
[1:37:56] out. We we talked specifically about
that. It's like you set the rate for
[1:38:00] whatever. It's like because you really
have no control over
[1:38:03] » I'm only saying that because it wasn't
stricken from the contract.
[1:38:05] » They revised that contract
>> in how many months?
[1:38:09] Uh we sent red lines.
>> It was in August.
[1:38:12] » It was Yeah. before the other mayor
departed. So
[1:38:15] » the only reason we got a per thousand
rate that we haven't gotten in the five
[1:38:18] years we've been working on this is
because I asked and Mr. Beridge Preston
[1:38:23] and they gave it to us like two weeks
ago.
[1:38:28] The day before the workshop meeting.
>> Um
[1:38:33] you're saying make it more simple. I
broke it down to what it actually looks
[1:38:36] like as a customer because I'm going be
honest guys, if we're not taking the
[1:38:40] customers into account and what it
actually looks like for them, we're not
[1:38:43] doing our jobs.
And so I know there's a lot of numbers
[1:38:47] there and I guess I could have color
coded it and made it easier. Um, but if
[1:38:51] you look down where it says estimated at
the bottom of that page, if we add $10
[1:38:55] to a fixed water rate to all water
customers currently on a 5,000 gallon
[1:39:00] customer, that's just pulling a number
out of average customer 5,000 gallon a
[1:39:04] month. Currently for water and sewer
vessels paying12920 a month
[1:39:11] with the force main project combat that
would go up to 19507 a month giving up
[1:39:16] control of sending it to con
with the wastewater treatment plant the
[1:39:22] SDR system it could potentially only
increase that to 186 per month still an
[1:39:28] increase still an unpopular increase a
necessary evil but it's less of an
[1:39:33] impact on rateayers and we keep the
local control. I'll get back to more of
[1:39:38] that in just a minute. There's a couple
of other proposals here. There's a lot
[1:39:42] of work if you want to look there.
[1:39:46] I can't promise this because they're not
on the ground. I'm not going to sit here
[1:39:49] and promise houses that aren't built.
There are houses being built right now
[1:39:53] in Mayflower that are not in these
numbers with this debt service. There's
[1:39:57] projected in the next 10 years.
Chris Matthews told me 1,200 homes in
[1:40:04] the next 10 years
based on three on paper projects that
[1:40:09] are just before being presented to
planning commissioning going forward. I
[1:40:13] don't want to do that. I'm being
conservative and saying 600 homes. That
[1:40:17] adds 50% to our sewer revenue.
And Mr. Beckers, if I'm lying, stop me
[1:40:23] right here. Without adding a great deal
of impact on our SDL system. Am I
[1:40:27] correct in saying that
>> the operating cost is not going to
[1:40:31] » right
>> go up substantially
[1:40:33] » but our potential revenues from customer
rates would increase by 50%.
[1:40:40] That would then allow us the extra money
to build infrastructure to fix those
[1:40:44] pump houses. It would allow us the extra
money to pay down this debt quicker and
[1:40:50] lower rates for it.
>> This thing could be going forward in 15
[1:40:53] years. Oh,
>> I will say this though. I mean I I
[1:40:59] I like where you're going with that.
However, what we saw what we saw with
[1:41:03] this wastewater treatment plan, you
know, at first it was $2 million and it
[1:41:09] was $4 million. That's $12 million. I
mean, it's just and that was in the span
[1:41:13] of a couple of years. So, you're talking
in 10 years, you're still estimating
[1:41:18] that the $5 million that we're going to
need to replace infrastructure is going
[1:41:22] to be $5 million. That might be $30
million in 10 years.
[1:41:26] And I'm taking I'm taking for granted
that you weren't at this meeting. It's
[1:41:31] only the electrical as well. So it's
only the electrical improvements for
[1:41:36] your existing station which is why Ren
asked me to evaluate.
[1:41:40] » Yes.
>> Although let me put let me put a pause
[1:41:42] on that for just a second looking at
vision because we've always been
[1:41:45] reactive instead of proactive. I've also
had this discussion with Raymond and Mr.
[1:41:49] Breenidge. That's if we contract it out.
We were just talking earlier in this
[1:41:54] meeting about needing additional water
personnel to look for leaks to do these
[1:41:59] things. Now granted, you may not send an
electrician out to this, but if we were
[1:42:04] able to save the money to do it and have
someone on staff as an operator at this
[1:42:09] station and things like that and to
rebuild those things, to do those things
[1:42:13] over time in kind that 5 million may
come down to three million, three and a
[1:42:18] half. I'm shooting at the wall there.
But if we can do them anyhow instead of
[1:42:22] contracting them out, we've got
personnel on hand that can do things
[1:42:28] that we're hiring with that and sales to
do it ourselves. Plus going toward the
[1:42:33] future where when we double
our population that's not on the ground
[1:42:38] yet. But when we double it, we've got
revenues that are pouring in. We're now
[1:42:42] building infrastructure
instead of being reactive and sending it
[1:42:47] with increasing electric field. Um,
additionally on that one, and I want to
[1:42:53] mention this for you, Mr. Marks,
one of the big issues when we voted on
[1:42:58] this back whenever it was
was looking at the shifting goalpost in
[1:43:03] AD,
the shifting um regulations, if you
[1:43:08] will, in our current system, you it's
really not set up to handle the shift.
[1:43:14] You have to add to the system.
this proposed system with the $8 million
[1:43:18] debt service as opposed to the 11.5
million to go home with what was $3.5
[1:43:23] million cheaper upfront to keep it in
Mayflower there. Now granted it washes
[1:43:28] out with the different rates if you'll
take a private rate on the
[1:43:32] » the other
I did factor that in. So that's why the
[1:43:37] break even changed. Yes. 321. Now, if
you factor in the different debt service
[1:43:43] coverage ratio required to provide
versus public and the different interest
[1:43:49] rate
>> and I'm not trying to get in the weeds
[1:43:50] here, but let me explain why that is
too. Why the debt service still looks
[1:43:53] closer even though that's 11 and a half
and this is only 80. With a private
[1:43:57] bond, we have to set back 20% addition
to our debt service. Whereas with the
[1:44:02] ANRC bond, it's only 10%.
But with that 20% to debt service, once
[1:44:07] that's collected, that's infrastructure
money that can then be shut next year to
[1:44:13] those banks. Am I wrong on that?
>> Um, well, you'll have to have you'll
[1:44:18] have to keep
>> you have to keep that 20%
[1:44:20] » that's 20%.
>> But once it's gained in that first year
[1:44:23] or whatever,
>> as long as Yeah. As long as you're
[1:44:25] keeping 20% of the debt service, you're
covering. So
[1:44:30] » that's 200,000 a year roughly that that
every year after that
[1:44:35] that can be used to pay somebody to deal
with those in house or to put back
[1:44:39] contract bills without having to absorb
new debt service.
[1:44:44] » If you think back to the original
discussion I mean the only thing that's
[1:44:47] really changed is that
>> now we have a definitive contract of
[1:44:52] mouth called for at $4 per thousand. It
was always kind of you were having to
[1:44:58] weigh how much do we weigh shifting the
burden of treatment to another utility
[1:45:04] versus keeping it in the house and we
you know we had to make some
[1:45:08] assumptions. You don't have separate
audits. So basically we assume that the
[1:45:15] current treatment plant um operating
costs were 15% of the total. So it's
[1:45:21] basically 50/50 and then um 30% of that
was considered be towards the treatment
[1:45:28] versus collection system.
>> Those were just talking with Brandon
[1:45:33] kind of a best guess because you don't
really have
[1:45:36] » well we're fixing to start doing
independent reviews somewhere in the
[1:45:38] next five years of sewer and water
independent audits based on that 605.
[1:45:44] But here's what it breaks down to. Just
10,000 foot. If you want to dig into the
[1:45:49] weeds, believe me, my wife got on to me
for laying in bed last night. She said,
[1:45:53] "What are you doing?" I said, "Math."
Because I was running these numbers in
[1:45:58] my head instead of sleeping. I had been
for weeks.
[1:46:02] Here's what it boils down to.
Keep it going forward. Send it to 504.
[1:46:07] You're going to spend more money with
higher rates and lose control of what
[1:46:12] you can do from now on.
or you spend less on it,
[1:46:17] lower rates, and you keep it in house
for something that we can build to in
[1:46:21] the future.
What I was getting to, the SPR system,
[1:46:26] we don't have to worry about the
shifting goal post. The way that's set
[1:46:29] up, this is the science behind it. You
essentially just change your cycle time
[1:46:34] in that system and it treats the water
to whatever levels that they want and
[1:46:39] then sends it out. eight billion dollars
building there. Also had a discussion
[1:46:43] with Mr. Breenidge because I'm a plan
for the worst hope for the best guy. We
[1:46:48] could probably value engineer that and
we obviously you can't put it on paper.
[1:46:52] Could potentially value engineer that
substantially less than 8 million. Is
[1:46:57] that a fair statement? Potentially.
>> I wouldn't say substantially, but you
[1:47:01] could shout beds coming in and we can
value engineer it to
[1:47:05] » because we have the lagoons to hold the
sludge. We might be able to use
[1:47:08] elevation instead of pumps to send out
the water. But again, if we're looking
[1:47:12] at adding 60% in the next 10 years of
revenue coming in,
[1:47:17] either that revenue will all go to
finally pour or we can use it to build
[1:47:20] here.
>> Do we want to do a whole lot of value
[1:47:24] engineering to sell this?
>> When we say value engineering, it would
[1:47:27] be like there have to be legumes to hold
sludge that comes out of the reactor
[1:47:31] tank. And we actually have lagoons from
our current system where we could store
[1:47:36] that probably we'll say probably 20
years worth before we'd have to pay for
[1:47:40] removal of that.
>> Yeah. So I mean there are other you know
[1:47:43] it's basically it's a way to meet the
budget. You get the bids in hand and
[1:47:48] then you work with a low the low bidder
the contractor say where where can we
[1:47:52] shave some to save some money. And
mostly what you're looking at is trading
[1:47:57] convenience for more. So more labor. So,
you know, like looking at things you can
[1:48:03] do like instead of having the UV system
in a building that's heated and you can
[1:48:07] just do a pavilion, you can make pro,
you know, it's just you make certain
[1:48:11] provisions and cuts to try to meet a
budget that you're looking for. It
[1:48:15] doesn't take any functionality away, but
take some of the user friendliness away.
[1:48:22] » I just want to be sure we don't cut
corners as well. We're cutting
[1:48:25] objective.
>> Yeah, I don't think it really, but it
[1:48:30] wouldn't affect your permit. You've got
to meet the permit that's there. That
[1:48:33] still remains the unknown. But like I
said, with a volume based system,
[1:48:39] a cycle based system rather than volume
based system
[1:48:43] you get out more easily.
But it with a change in administration
[1:48:49] would change drastically
to the to the either side. So right now
[1:48:55] there's a lot of less regulations we
have product but get a different
[1:49:00] administration a different EPA
administrator they can start hammering
[1:49:03] on
>> let me speak to that though within this
[1:49:06] contract as well
>> don't think if if the administration and
[1:49:09] they shift the gold post substantially
don't think that our rates are going to
[1:49:13] reflect that common board because it's
spelled in that contract that if the
[1:49:17] rates change and different thing if if
the regulations change then that'll get
[1:49:21] passed in now on skills of economy
all will be as big of an impact.
[1:49:25] » Yeah. I mean, they already have nutrient
c nutrient removal capability. So,
[1:49:29] they're I guess better suited to handle
it
[1:49:32] » per per contract as well. And I'll say
this, Connelly
[1:49:35] is is I don't even remember where I
heard this, so I'm speaking gossip here.
[1:49:40] They're anticipating their population
nearly double in the next 10 years and
[1:49:44] they're going to have to expand their
system. And then the contract, we would
[1:49:48] be on the hook for the debt service as
well with the expansion of that
[1:49:51] contract.
extension system.
[1:49:56] » Again, the 10,000 foot leaf question is
[1:50:01] do we invest in common or do we invest
in us
[1:50:05] and it's cheaper to invest in us? That's
as simple as I could put it and it's
[1:50:09] probably oversimplistic
>> and honestly the reason this all started
[1:50:13] is well comic came to us at the county
meeting. Hey, you want to look at
[1:50:17] infrastructure? There's money out there.
Talk to ARC. Oh, yeah. Infrastructure is
[1:50:21] going to rate high. Of course, you ended
up, you know, we exhausted every avenue.
[1:50:25] We ended up not getting any roof. I
mean, even though it was an
[1:50:29] infrastructure project, of course,
Conway Corp actually changed that.
[1:50:32] Originally, it was a true u
regionalization project. I'm saying it's
[1:50:36] just a regionalization project, but they
after they looked at your election
[1:50:40] system, they changed it from a true
regionalization to a master meter
[1:50:45] arrangement versus not meet the
regionalization requirement. But that's
[1:50:49] kind of how we ended up, I guess, where
we are. We've moved down that path now.
[1:50:55] You finally got a contract number and
it's kind of like here's the decision
[1:50:58] time. You've either got to set the ANRC
loan. If you don't sign that and send it
[1:51:03] in by Friday, they will deobligate those
funds. You would just have to uh reapply
[1:51:09] if you wanted an ANRC loan in the
future. Or you can do private placement
[1:51:14] bonds, which honestly, you know, now
you're probably going to be 70 75 basis
[1:51:20] points or so, uh maybe 100 basis points
above
[1:51:26] the the ANRC rate. Is there a potential
that we could get this project funded
[1:51:30] through ANRC in the next year?
>> There is. Yeah. I mean, it I I think you
[1:51:36] would probably get a loan offer again if
you revised it. If you're saying you
[1:51:40] revised it to wastewater treatment plant
and then reapply.
[1:51:43] » So, we're going to be in the same shape.
We're in the same rate. So, that debt
[1:51:47] service number is going to come down
even more
[1:51:50] » potentially.
>> Yeah. I mean, I would make that
[1:51:52] decision.
>> I would expect them. You can't say for
[1:51:54] sure because they only have a limited
budget in the second loan fund. They did
[1:52:00] turn some away. They didn't award
everybody a loan, but I would expect you
[1:52:04] to get a loan author
[1:52:09] on a revised project, but there's no
guarantee.
[1:52:14] You can always get you can get the money
in a private still be cheaper than the
[1:52:19] other law.
[1:52:25] It's my biggest thing that
cheaper
[1:52:31] and it's not
valuable. They're going to be cheaper.
[1:52:37] Only kids can down the road while we're
like this town is done forever. And
[1:52:44] that's why we're in the situation we're
in now. I want to be sure that in 10
[1:52:48] years we don't have the same hard crappy
system
[1:52:57] with higher rates and then we're going
to have to raise raise the rates again
[1:53:01] because we still have the same crappy
system.
[1:53:05] You will have to spend more in labor
cost if you put an SPR system in. You're
[1:53:10] going to need more operator time on site
than you do now system. You're going to
[1:53:15] have that class three operator
>> if that's figured into this debt service
[1:53:19] as well. Is it?
>> It's estimated. Yes.
[1:53:23] » Again, it's not like this is in addition
to that's these numbers.
[1:53:28] » Currently, we only have one operator.
Raymond is the only licensed operator on
[1:53:33] staff.
>> Again, we need two operators.
[1:53:36] » Yeah.
[1:53:43] So, as you said, I mean, we've exhausted
this six ways from Sunday over the last
[1:53:47] two and a half years, but um happy to
answer any questions we have.
[1:53:52] » Gentlemen, I wouldn't have brought it
back up if
[1:53:55] the expression is the game hadn't
changed. We have the rate change with
[1:54:00] not getting any grant funding. We're
looking at an 11.5 million check to sign
[1:54:05] as opposed to an $8 million check.
Again,
[1:54:10] and knowing what it's going to do to
rate payers. Well, it's just literally
[1:54:15] if you look on that last page, this was
a spelled up proposal that made guys.
[1:54:21] If we went with the wastewater treatment
plant with this given net service, we
[1:54:25] could make it with water only customers,
they're a 5,000galon customer, their
[1:54:29] bill only increases by $13, which is
roughly 22%.
[1:54:34] And even a sewer customer where we were
looking at 80 to 100% increases at some
[1:54:39] places where we were looking would only
increase by $59 or 46%. Hate to use the
[1:54:44] word only because I'm right there in the
Phoenix. But if you tell me, hey, would
[1:54:48] you rather increase your bill by $59 or
it'll scroll back up to the top or by
[1:54:53] $72?
I'd much rather my bill increased by
[1:54:56] $59.
[1:55:02] Is there value in doing that? We can we
can pay less today, pay 10 times more in
[1:55:09] the future because we're not investing
in the infrastructure with this with and
[1:55:15] I'm not opposed to what we're doing, but
what I want to be sure of is that we're
[1:55:20] not just kicking the can down the road
for the sake of cheating the race, which
[1:55:23] is what the city has done since it was
So we're in this situation. I don't want
[1:55:29] to do that again.
>> Well, you will and you would be in the
[1:55:33] same boat because as you say, I mean
plants wear out equally,
[1:55:44] I'm sure they would pass on prorated
percentage to you based upon now you
[1:55:50] won't be able to take advantage and
that's kind of where we were talking
[1:55:53] about kind of the scale. you can't take
advantage of their economy of scale
[1:55:57] because you're going to have a 1 MGD
plant versus a 16 MGD plant. So, the
[1:56:03] program share future improvements is
likely to be higher to you on a
[1:56:08] percentage basis, but you've got the
factor in as you said the control, the
[1:56:14] other stuff.
That's been the question all along is
[1:56:16] how do you weight the unknowns of future
and keep maintaining that treatment
[1:56:22] system and potential regulations and
keeping an operator maintenance versus
[1:56:29] shifting that off to a third party and
just paying them per thousand gallon.
[1:56:34] And when we were thinking, you know,
around $3, it was kind of a, hey, we're
[1:56:38] roughly at break even. Now then you have
a definitive $4 per thousand. And then
[1:56:43] it changes
in you have to value that. You have to
[1:56:48] value shifting that responsibility a
little higher than maybe we were
[1:56:51] thinking before
>> is and my concern with that $4
[1:56:57] is if 650 is what they gave us and back
down to four. How quickly are we going
[1:57:03] to be back up to that six? is 650 what
they and they're just they're gonna give
[1:57:09] the score for a year or two and then
bonus closer and closer and closer to
[1:57:14] that.
>> It appears to me James it appears to me
[1:57:17] if they don't want but if we're willing
to pay the price then they'll take it.
[1:57:23] » I'm real disappointed in it because I
voted to go that direction. However,
[1:57:27] with the information that we had at the
time, you start looking back and you
[1:57:32] start seeing all the unknowns and you
start plugging in a couple of the
[1:57:36] unknowns. The price goes out of sight.
Then you look at the contract.
[1:57:43] They decide to do something. Correct me
if I'm wrong. On the other side of their
[1:57:46] system,
we have to share the possibly that
[1:57:50] expense. However, they're not sharing in
our expense. They could have
[1:57:56] they were they were only incurring they
were only clausing about their treatment
[1:58:01] system collection system. So you didn't
you didn't share any fun collection
[1:58:05] system but
>> they didn't share any part of what was
[1:58:08] out.
>> No they didn't attack I mean they
[1:58:10] specifically took it out you know
originally it was going to be
[1:58:12] regionalization you were going to become
a comical customer and they they xn name
[1:58:17] that pat down on the regalization part.
Uh but yeah, I mean the I think the
[1:58:22] contract is still negotiable. We like I
said, we gave them red lines. Uh we met
[1:58:28] with Brett um Daniel who's the
engineering supervisor and Ferguson
[1:58:34] about specifically the red lines. They
agreed to to make some changes, but we
[1:58:38] have got some revision. Now you have per
dollar amount. So, um, you'd obviously
[1:58:47] want to see that final contract
and make sure your
[1:58:53] concerns were addressed. I think a big
concern was they had a search charge on
[1:58:57] there for excess water, which were like
just
[1:59:01] why do you have, you know, you just
you're charging us per thousand, what do
[1:59:06] you care? If if it's a per thousand
fragment and that's adequate to meet
[1:59:09] your needs, why are you giving us a
search charge? You don't have to deal
[1:59:13] with
and collection system.
[1:59:18] » For me, I guess we have to decide
whether we're going to take this money
[1:59:21] in three days. And it's a lot of money
and there's a lot of fun.
[1:59:29] » I mean, to be honest, ANRC probably
don't wouldn't mind seeing this, but you
[1:59:34] could if you're if you're still
questioning it, you want more time, you
[1:59:39] can sign it and back up later. I mean,
you're not sign of the party any
[1:59:46] you have until the bottom of the
ordinance and that's when you have to
[1:59:49] sign on the dotted line. I agree to pay
this back on this amortization schedule.
[1:59:54] » Oh, if we're going to try to
>> there the problem with if you back out
[1:59:57] and still want the NRC money in the
future right now. Well, we couldn't
[2:00:01] trust you to
>> stay with your word.
[2:00:04] I'm not asking you to vote tonight. We
can make it work and sign it and keep
[2:00:09] going forward and then discuss it more.
But
[2:00:14] I don't get to vote for
sounds like it's pretty black and white
[2:00:18] clear to me, but I don't get to vote and
that's why I brought it before you and
[2:00:21] try to give you as much
not questioning anybody's intelligence
[2:00:27] or anything. you know, try to give
people as much legitimate information
[2:00:30] and anecdotal information as well,
visionary information because James, I
[2:00:35] see what you're saying about the value
and are we just doing this for now? My
[2:00:40] opinion for what it's worth, I feel like
going forward with the forest project is
[2:00:44] the shortsided option.
Creating our own SBR system to invest in
[2:00:51] ourselves to keep the low control to
save money for rate bears today is the
[2:00:56] marathon is the long-term goal that
we've got something that's built to when
[2:01:02] our population doubles potentially in
the next 10 years 10 years. We've got
[2:01:08] something that's our own.
I quote Mr. Breenidge
[2:01:14] we pointed this a couple years ago and
told me who is
[2:01:17] I'm going to be honest. I see a way when
15 years from now who is in fact
[2:01:21] profitable with the city
>> sure
[2:01:25] » that we can reinvest and shake y'all
don't lose this note
[2:01:29] » well I mean yeah it's because it's not
profitable because it's always
[2:01:33] subsidized by water because it's cost
>> sure
[2:01:36] » more relatively than water and
>> that's in either way though
[2:01:40] » that's how all cities are set up but
it's starting to change and the new you
[2:01:44] know they just passed um a new act 605
time is a good number, but for sewer,
[2:01:50] this is going to require all the same
thing we just went through with water.
[2:01:54] And so it's coming and they're going to
have to be separate entities and they're
[2:01:58] going to have to be accounted for
separately, separate audits and be self
[2:02:02] sustaining. Like the USDA was going to
require you when we're trying to look at
[2:02:07] USDA funding, they required it to be
exported. Sewer has to be self
[2:02:11] sustaining. You can't subsidize it with
water.
[2:02:15] That that's where we're headed. um
everybody's sewer rates going to be
[2:02:19] higher and then it will be um more of a
more of a break even instead of a
[2:02:25] » well and again if that's minimum of 5
years down the road they haven't even
[2:02:28] given guidance on that much less
implementation dates we could have a
[2:02:32] chunk of this certain paid off before
then
[2:02:35] » it seems to me the Conway deal is
[2:02:40] like you said the numbers have changed
the calculus has changed it doesn't seem
[2:02:45] seems like To me, it feels like trying
to go forward with Conway is trying to
[2:02:50] pound a square peg and go around the
hole. We could make it work.
[2:02:56] It's going to probably shatter the peg
in the process.
[2:03:00] We'll plug the hole, but in a while
we're going to drill that peg out. We're
[2:03:05] going to have to put something in there
that actually fits.
[2:03:08] » I'm for doing our own thing, right? you
I'm convinced we really break down the
[2:03:12] numbers
because we made a decision last time on
[2:03:17] a lot of unknowns
and now that we have a lot of the known
[2:03:23] it's it speaks for ourselves
100%.
[2:03:29] So that's where I'm
[2:03:34] » Yeah, I'm I'm uneasy about taking the
money to go to the Conway route.
[2:03:41] Haven't heard what I've heard. I'm not
uneasy about not going to route.
[2:03:49] But if if we if we keep it in house, I
would want the project to be laid out
[2:03:55] professionally.
I don't want the good old boy of wink
[2:04:00] wink, we'll put the money towards it and
in 10 years we don't have any money and
[2:04:05] our sewer is falling apart. So I would
want this professionally project managed
[2:04:13] and I would want specific
measurable goals that we would be
[2:04:18] meeting and and that will get us to that
so that in 10 years we're not sitting
[2:04:23] around going 8 million. Why do we have
pools everywhere and all our pipes?
[2:04:29] Where's the money? I don't know where to
go. I don't know. Because that's the way
[2:04:33] we've always operated.
>> Hopefully the water will be more
[2:04:38] involved in that and
look at the numbers and be less of a
[2:04:43] formality and more of an important
integral part of this project. Am I
[2:04:47] wrong?
>> No, I I hadn't thought about that.
[2:04:50] You're you're absolutely right. Yeah, I
I think you're 100% right. Maybe
[2:04:55] function is more of a check and balance
in the system than just here's $8.5
[2:05:00] million. Let's hope that it goes where
it won't go. One thing to note on that
[2:05:04] is that the these numbers don't reflect
any statistical improvements. This this
[2:05:10] is just define the treatment side
>> but on either option
[2:05:16] » right neither option. So you're it's
>> additional collection system
[2:05:21] » collection system
>> comes from the additional rate payers
[2:05:24] that would come on top of those 12
and on top of the 32
[2:05:30] 3210
that come in the mix that's going to add
[2:05:34] the addition along with the extra 20%
after year one after that money set
[2:05:39] aside the 20% of that debt service is
that rate's going to continue
[2:05:46] to generate make that extra 20% year
after year. Roughly 200,000 a year that
[2:05:52] could be the solid
infrastructure.
[2:05:58] » Don't let me overstate that. I'm not
collecting that.
[2:06:02] » Uh yeah, I mean you have the RA account
which is factored in 5% of gross revenue
[2:06:08] a year. So that can go towards your
collection system.
[2:06:10] » So there is a little bit in there.
>> I think it needs to be written in there
[2:06:14] that there is that overage. It's not
could go to the system that it does go
[2:06:20] to the system. It doesn't we it is not
treated like
[2:06:26] » would it be appropriate for me at this
point to make a suggestion that we vote
[2:06:33] » I would like to hear from because we've
got some new council members that have
[2:06:36] never heard
and Mr. Kelsey had a question as well
[2:06:41] that I would love to hear from
>> I don't have no go for Mr. else you want
[2:06:45] to do.
>> No, I just I grew up in a city-owned
[2:06:50] water system and everything else like
that. It does work. And what you guys
[2:06:54] all talking about right now, you go to
that's gone. There's no way. You don't
[2:07:00] get to
you don't get profits or anything above
[2:07:06] that to reinvest. It's gone,
[2:07:11] you know. So, you know, yeah, we
Mayflower dug themselves in a hole, but
[2:07:18] let's
start building a hole in get ourselves
[2:07:21] out of it.
And if you
[2:07:27] choose to,
you know, go with confidently,
[2:07:32] you don't get these options you're
talking about right now. It's awesome.
[2:07:37] I just
really hope that um you guys
[2:07:46] » such a back to the walls and just goal.
>> I think what you said though
[2:07:52] acknowledges the fact that we have as
ourselves a hole. So,
[2:07:58] » and we are we are in a hole and the only
way to get us out of that hole is going
[2:08:03] to be with radio increases.
>> There's going to be rate increases but
[2:08:07] we can't
>> Yeah, it's going to be radio
[2:08:12] is is the whole Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you, Randy.
[2:08:17] » What you got to say, Randy? Yeah, I I'd
say keep it in house from the numbers
[2:08:23] I'm seeing here
instead of going with Conway.
[2:08:27] Of course, you know, this is the first
time I'm seeing all these numbers.
[2:08:30] » True. That's why it's not almost not
even fair.
[2:08:32] » Yeah.
>> Some of us been looking at these numbers
[2:08:34] for 5 years plus.
>> Yeah.
[2:08:36] » But you may have a clear picture.
>> That's why I want to be here.
[2:08:43] » Yeah.
>> It's been a long road to get to these
[2:08:47] pages you're looking at tonight.
[2:08:54] Yeah, I'd like to see it kept in May.
[2:08:59] » You have any questions?
[2:09:03] » You got anything to ask?
>> I'd say let's vote on it. Let's
[2:09:09] » give me guidance on whether or not to
sign that paper.
[2:09:14] I think motion.
>> I'd like to make a motion to
[2:09:18] keep the water or the sewer system in
house. I guess that's the option that
[2:09:23] I'm
>> What's the problem?
[2:09:26] » So that's what I'm looking at the the
>> basically just
[2:09:34] negotiation with
97
[2:09:41] » and and it will not be as easy as
repealing a resolution that we made back
[2:09:45] in August of last year. Listen,
I I didn't it wasn't my anticipation for
[2:09:53] this to come to a vote tonight. I know
that sounds crazy after all the
[2:09:57] information I presented to you, but
don't change my mind.
[2:10:00] » I'm trying to change your mind.
>> I just guys, I want y'all to make a
[2:10:04] decision and do what's best, what he
feels best for his grandparents and
[2:10:07] people in their life. I don't think that
we have a solid wave forward at this
[2:10:11] point, but I think we have a solid way
or a solid idea of where we don't want
[2:10:15] to go, which is the con. Let me address
one more thing. You know, we did this
[2:10:21] the loss revenue that we'll lose from
county at this point is roughly 800,000
[2:10:26] something 900,000.
>> Just short million
[2:10:31] side money. the project that that money
goes to intended easy is project
[2:10:42] » I guess
[2:10:49] » well they if if we we don't do this then
they get that money toward
[2:10:58] their pay versus
again
[2:11:04] half dozen together
>> and I can tell you this before Judge
[2:11:07] Dawson were when I did speak to him
about potential and that I was going to
[2:11:11] present this they tried every way
possible they're like man wants to
[2:11:15] figure out a way to keep
just heads are b
[2:11:21] we're not going to come at you for
what's already been spent at you know
[2:11:23] we're not looking at that
is better than nothing but none of that
[2:11:28] extra money was figured at either of
these solitude So
[2:11:33] » well I guess
[2:11:37] I can't come up with any any any
good marks toward common. If I can come
[2:11:44] up with with a little bit of a reason
why it would benefit.
[2:11:50] Let me try to take a static motion. I
would make a motion then to
[2:11:56] not accept
the loan that we've been offered and not
[2:12:01] go forward with economy court and new we
will
[2:12:08] develop we will continue to flesh out
then the plan on how you're going to do
[2:12:13] it both
but at this point we just know that we
[2:12:19] don't want to go
I will say this, in my opinion, this is
[2:12:25] a super big project and a super big
decision for the city of Mile.
[2:12:31] I'm not sure that making a decision
once a month
[2:12:37] is adequate for this size of project
that's detrimental to the citizens of
[2:12:43] this city. if we need to double up and
and have some workshops to get this
[2:12:49] stuff figured out and get done. I think
that's probably a good idea
[2:12:52] » going forward. I would love
I don't want this to appear as another
[2:12:58] instance of kicking the can. I would
love to start
[2:13:04] with projections with actually
engineering and horse main project
[2:13:10] start tomorrow
whatever that looks like. We already had
[2:13:14] some you guys but we did know the former
mayor and I did we pursued the other
[2:13:22] avenues prior to call for. So we looked
at we met with AQ about the current
[2:13:29] permit like hey why do you have a limit
you know can this be negotiated we
[2:13:34] talked about the lagoon system
>> and fair lagoon system for probably
[2:13:38] closer to six7 billion that's not going
to meet our needs long term. There's
[2:13:43] other stuff we can talk about. If you
decide not to go to common court, then
[2:13:46] we need to start bringing y'all back
into that.
[2:13:50] » I love the SBR system. It adapts to us.
But again,
[2:13:54] the motion I have from Mr. Schneider, if
you would make a motion to not accept
[2:13:59] the ANRC offer and not go forward with
the force project.
[2:14:05] Yes.
Second.
[2:14:13] Did it the current spirit of
[2:14:20] Mr.
>> Yes. Mr. Mars?
[2:14:21] » Yes. Mr. Snap?
>> Yes.
[2:14:22] » Mr. Hill?
>> Yes. Mr. Hannah?
[2:14:24] » Yes.
>> Mr. Hall?
[2:14:25] » Yes.
>> Gentlemen,
[2:14:29] thank you on behalf of our folks.
[2:14:34] Hey, thank you for
developers make sense. Appreciate you.
[2:14:40] » We still got work to do. I know.
>> Thank you, Mr. Breynch, for all the work
[2:14:44] that you've done on this to work with us
to get this done. And those guys,
[2:14:50] Connley, I just can't imagine them just
shooting a number like that out of the
[2:14:54] blue. And we they know we've been
working on this so long. That's very
[2:14:58] disappoint.
>> That's part of it, Colonel. to be
[2:15:00] honest.
>> I think they felt like we were locked
[2:15:02] into it so they could name whatever they
want before us on paper. I'm not trying
[2:15:06] to vilify Rick Carol. I'm not.
>> But business is business
[2:15:14] right and that
>> they're going to do it. But if we're
[2:15:18] willing to pay for it through the nose,
then they'll take it and they're going
[2:15:23] to turn a mighty profit off.
[2:15:30] They're going to come this way. I mean,
they're they're come they're going to
[2:15:33] end up coming all the way to see Linds.
>> We're going to pay to take it all the
[2:15:38] way to them and then they're going to
capitalize of it all the way back to us.
[2:15:44] » Seems like it would be more of a if if
everybody wanted to do that, it seems
[2:15:48] like it' be more of a a team effort
instead of a Mayflower effort. That make
[2:15:52] sense? Because it's going to benefit
them largely down the road. But I I got
[2:15:59] to thinking about that if we paid for it
all to go that way and then they start
[2:16:04] on their place and start making money
off a system we've been put that we put
[2:16:08] in.
[2:16:12] If if anyone thinks that Conway is not
going to move this way, you you've been
[2:16:17] asleep for about
century of history because they're
[2:16:21] they're going to come this way.
We can either acknowledge
[2:16:28] that and prepare for it or we can be at
Conway level seven.
[2:16:34] But if they're looking at doubling their
population in 10 years, where are they
[2:16:37] going to put those people? You've been
to Conway reasonably, there's not a
[2:16:41] whole lot of area within the city,
>> multi-unit housing to put them in left
[2:16:45] and right.
>> Well, they are, but still you're talking
[2:16:48] about 60 65,000 people to to that
they're going to increase. They're going
[2:16:53] to need more land. So, they're going to
have to answer us. They're gonna have to
[2:16:57] come start coming this way. So, that's
in today's day and age, you're either
[2:17:05] annexing or you're getting and it's time
for people to kind of wake up to that or
[2:17:11] to that reality.
>> You're either you're either the annex or
[2:17:15] the annexing.
[2:17:20] » Uh, gentlemen, it's been a long night. I
made up for that 17 minute meeting.
[2:17:28] Any public comments
to entertain
[2:17:33] council members in other
draft letter to review itemally
[2:17:44] where that why you didn't send them?
>> Yes, that would thank you.
[2:17:51] » Council, any other comments?
Uh
[2:17:56] uh I was going to let me make these
quick announcements.
[2:18:00] Next regular council meeting is Tuesday,
February 24th at 6:30 p.m. Our next
[2:18:06] planning commission meeting is Tuesday,
February 10th at 6:30 p.m. And our next
[2:18:13] council workshop workshop is Thursday,
February 12th at 6:30 p.m.
[2:18:20] There are no other comments. I will
entertain a motion to adjourn.
[2:18:24] Second.
[2:18:29] » Thank you.
[2:18:48] » Thank you for Thank you for stepping up
to the plate, man.
[2:18:56] working
got
[2:19:02] » your salary, right?
>> Uhuh.
[2:19:04] » Jimmy Joe, what are you agreeing about?
>> You got the smoke still needs some work.
[2:19:11] » Yeah, it does. down.
>> I Oh.