[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.

January 27, 2026 City Council Meeting

Transcript