February 23, 2016 - McAllen Public Utility

Transcription

BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2016 – 4:00 AM
CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS 3RD FLOOR
1300 HOUSTON AVE.
McALLEN, TX 78501
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE
INVOCATION
1.
MINUTES: a)
2.
BIDS AND CONTRACTS: a)
Consideration and Approval of the Professional Services Amendment for Big "D" Engineering's Geowater Project b)
Award of Contract for the purchase of Forty (40) New 2016 Vehicles for Various City Departments. c)
16th & Beech Lift Station and Sanitary Sewer Pipe Replacement Project Revised Fee Proposal d)
Consideration and Approval of Purchase of One (1) 2016 CM Combination Vacuum Flush Truck e)
Consideration and Approval of Proposed Increase to Liquid Waste Disposal Fees 3.
RESOLUTION: a)
4.
UTILITY LAYOUTS: a)
b)
5.
MANAGER’S REPORT: a)
Approval of amending City Ordinance No. 200613 of the City of McAllen, Chapter 2 Article IV Division 6, Section 2261 and Section 2262, Internal Audit Charter and Policy Manual, and Internal Audit IntraOffice Fraud Reporting and Investigation Policy. b)
Presentation by BBS January Water Brief 6.
TABLED ITEMS: a)
Approval of Minutes for Workshop and Regular Meeting held on February 9, 2016, and for Special Meeting held on January 27, 2016. Consideration and Approval of the North McAllen Reuse Facilities and TransmissionLine Project Resolution for TWDB/CWSRF Loan Application Discussion and Approval of RSBR FM 681 Subdivision Discussion and Possible Action for Cost Participation to the Home 2 Suites Hotel Water Improvements
Presentation by BBS 7. EXECUTIVE SESSION, CHAPTER 551, TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 551.071 CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY, SECTION 551.072 LAND TRANSACTION, SECTION 551.074 PERSONNEL MATTERS; SECTION 551.087 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEGOTIATIONS a)
Consultation with City Attorney Regarding matters to Economic Development (T.G.C. 551.087) b)
Consultation with City Attorney Regarding Legal Issues Related to CCN Approval Process. (T.G.C. 551.071) c)
Consultation with City Attorney regarding legal aspects of electricity contract. (T.G.C. 551.071) ADJOURNMENT
IF ANY ACCOMMODATION FOR A DISABILITY IS REQUIRED (OR INTERPRETERS FOR THE DEAF), NOTIFY UTILITY ADMINISTRATION (6811630) FORTYEIGHT (48) HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETING DATE. WITH REGARD TO ANY ITEM, THE MCALLEN PUBLIC UTILITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES MAY TAKE VARIOUS ACTIONS; INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO RESCHEDULING AN ITEM IN ITS ENTIRETY FOR A FUTURE DATE OF TIME. THE MCALLEN PUBLIC UTILITY BOARD MAY ELECT TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION ON ANY ITEM WHETHER OR NOT SUCH ITEM IS POSTED AS AN EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEM AT ANY TIME DURING THE MEETING WHEN AUTHORIZED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT.
THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED BOARD MEETING WILL BE HELD ON MARCH 29, 2016
PUBLIC UTILITY BOARD
AGENDA ITEM
1.a.
DATE SUBMITTED
MEETING DATE
02/18/2016
02/23/2016
1. Agenda Item: Approval of Minutes for Workshop and Regular Meeting held on
February 9, 2016, and for Special Meeting held on January 27, 2016.
2. Party Making Request:
3. Nature of Request:
4. Budgeted:
Bid Amount:
Under Budget:
Budgeted Amount:
Over Budget:
Amount Remaining:
5. Reimbursement:
6. Routing:
Flatau, Nyla
Created/Initiated - 02/18/2016
7. Staff's Recommendation: Nyla L. Flatau, TRMC/CMC, Utility Board Secretary
8. City Attorney: Approved - KDP
9. MPU General Manager: Approved - MAV
10. Director of Finance for Utilities: Approved - MDC
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF HIDALGO
CITY OF MCALLEN
The McAllen Public Utility Board met in a Workshop on Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 2:30
p.m. at McAllen City Commission Chambers with the following members present:
Ernest Williams
Albert Cardenas
Charles Amos
Tony Aguirre, Jr.
Chairman
Vice-Chairman
Trustee
Trustee
Absent:
Veronica Vela-Whitacre
Commissioner/Ex-Officio
Staff:
Marco A. Vega, P.E.
Kevin Pagan
Melba Carvajal
Marco Pedraza
Carlos Gonzalez, P.E.
J.J. Rodriguez
Sergio Espinoza, P.E.
Carlos Diaz-Limon, Jr.
Joe Solis
Robert Acosta
General Manager
City Attorney
Director of Finance for Utilities
Director of Wastewater Systems
Utility Engineer
Assistant General Manager
Utility Engineer
Assistant to the Utility Board Secretary
Director of Water Systems
Director of Information Technology
1) North McAllen Water Treatment Plant Filter Troubleshoot Status Update
Staff presented a status update on the ongoing filter related improvements currently taking
place at the North Water Treatment Plant. They discussed the SCADA System
troubleshooting status and the filter underdrain improvements/repairs. They also presented
the proposal for the lower filter troughs, and the professional services amendment for Freese
and Nichols contract.
2) Lower Rio Grande Water Quality Monitoring Feasibility Study
Ray Longoria, P.E. with Freese and Nichols presented an update for the Lower Rio Grande
Water Quality Monitoring Feasibility Study. He discussed the key participants, project
objective, key findings and recommendations.
3) EXECUTIVE SESSION, CHAPTER 551, TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE,
SECTION 551.071 (CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY), SECTION 551.072
LAND TRANSACTION, SECTION 551.074 PERSONNEL MATTERS; SECTION
551.087 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEGOTIATIONS
Chairman Ernest Williams recessed the workshop at 3:36 p.m. to go into executive session;
the workshop was reconvened at 4:10 p.m. and no action was taken.
a)
Consultation with City Attorney Regarding Matters related to Economic Development.
(T.G.C. 551.087)
1
b)
Consultation with City Attorney regarding legal issues related to CNN Approval
Process (T.G.C. 551.071)
ADJOURNMENT
There being no other business to come before the Board, the workshop was unanimously
adjourned at 4:10 p.m.
_______________________
Ernest Williams, Chairman
Attest:
________________________
Nyla L. Flatau, TRMC/CMC
Utility Board Secretary
2
Page 1 of 6
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF HIDALGO
CITY OF MCALLEN
The McAllen Public Utility Board (MPUB ) convened in a Regular Meeting on Tuesday,
February 9, 2016, at 4:00 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers at City Hall with the following
members present:
Albert Cardenas, Vice-Chairman
Tony Aguirre, Jr., Trustee
Charles Amos, Trustee
Veronica Vela-Whitacre, Commissioner/Ex-Officio
Gerardo Noriega, Purchasing Director
Jeff Johnston, Assistant City Manager
Staff:
Marco A. Vega, P.E., General Manager
J.J. Rodriguez, Assistant General Manager
Nyla L. Flatau, TRMC/CMC, Utility Board Secretary
Melba Carvajal, Dir. of Finance for Utilities
Marco Pedraza, Dir. of Wastewater Systgems
Carlos Gonzalez, P.E., Dev./Special Projects Eng.
Sergio Espinoza, P.E., Utility Eng.
Joe Solis, Dir. of Water Systems
Pablo Rodriguez, Customer Relations Mgr.
Edith Shelton, Executive Assistant
Rafael Balderas, Fire Chief
Michelle Leftwich, Assistant City Manager
Roy Rodriguez, City Manager
Kevin Pagan, City Attorney
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Ernest Williams called the meeting to order.
1.
MINUTES:
a)
Approval of Minutes for the Workshop and Regular Meeting held
January 12, 2016.
Trustee Tony Aguirre, Jr. moved to approve the minute for the Workshop
and Regular Meeting held January 12, 2016. Seconded by Trustee Charles
Amos. The vote on the motion carried as follows:
AYE: Chairman Ernest Williams, Vice Chairman Albert Cardenas, Trustee
Page 2 of 6
Charles Amos, and Trustee Tony Aguirre, Jr.
NAY: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Veronica Whitacre
The motion passed.
2.
BIDS AND CONTRACTS:
a)
Consideration and Approval of the Professional Services Amendment #2
for Freese and Nichols South Water Treatment Plant Filter Expansion
Project
Mr. Carlos Gonzalez announced that Staff requested assistance from Freese
and Nichols to help assess and troubleshoot recurring problems. A proposal
was submitted which noted additional tasks such as the North Water Plant
Trouble Shooting Report at $18,300, the North Water Plant Construction
Administration for $10,000, the South Water Plant Backwash Pump
Specification Preparation in the amount of $14,900, the North Water
Treatment Plant Reservoir TCEQ Mandated Inundation Study for $36,400,
and the North Water Treatment Plant Reservoir Operations & Maintenance
Manual in the amount of $7,100.
The total proposal amount was for $86,700. Staff recommended approval of
amendment as proposed and noted that the amount is not budgeted;
therefore, a budget amendment for said amount is forthcoming for the
Board's approval.
Trustee Charles Amos moved for approval; seconded by Vice Chairman
Albert Cardenas. The vote on the motion carried as follows:
NAY: None
ABSTAIN: None
The motion passed.
b)
Consideration and Approval of the Emergency Contract for North Water
Treatment Plant SCADA Troubleshooting Project
Mr. Carlos Gonzalez stated that Municipal Pump and Control, Inc. was hired
to evaluate and troubleshoot the original North Water Plant SCADA system
to determine the effort needed to bring system back on-line.
Proposal was submitted in the amount of $18,800 for the effort of assessing
Page 3 of 6
system. He further added that this item was exempt from the normal
procurement process due to the preservation and/or protection to the public
health or safety of the municipality's residents. Recommendation was for
approval.
Trustee Tony Aguirre moved for approval; seconded by Trustee Charles
Amos. The vote on the motion carried as follows:
NAY: None
ABSTAIN: None
The motion passed.
c)
Consideration and Possible Action of the Emergency Contract for North
Water Treatment Plant Filter "C" Media Retaining Cap Replacement
Mr. Carlos Gonzalez stated that the media retention system for filter "C"
underdrains had been undermined in which cracks had been detected along
the center of caps. Recommendation was for repairs to be done as an
emergency contract as well.
He added that this item was exempt from the normal procurement process
due to the preservation and/or protection to the public health or safety of the
municipality's residents. Recommendation was for approval for repairs to be
done by Wright Construction for the amount of $87,305.
Tony Aguirre, Jr., Trustee moved to approve in a not-to-exceed amount of
$87,305. Charles Amos, Trustee seconded the motion. The motion carried
unanimously by those present.
d)
Consideration and Approval of North Water Treatment Plant Filter
Trough Adjustment
Mr. Carlos Gonzalez informed the Board that Freese and Nichols reported a
number of operational suggestions to operate more efficiently the plant filter
system. One of the recommendations included the lowering of the filter
troughs; this would improve system efficiency by reducing filter backwash
by 17,200 gallons per backwash cycle. The adjustment would require taking
filters off-line and removal of filter media.
He further added that this item was exempt from the normal procurement
process due to the preservation and/or protection to the public health or
safety of the municipality's residents. Recommendation was for approval for
single submitted proposal in an not-to-exceed amount of $19,780.
Page 4 of 6
Tony Aguirre, Jr., Trustee moved to approve Staff's recommendation.
Charles Amos, Trustee seconded the motion. The motion carried
unanimously by those present.
3.
RESOLUTION:
a)
A Resolution of the Public Utility Board of Trustees designating Sonia
Resendez as Investment Officer
Mr. Mark Vega presented a resolution that designated Sonia Resendez,
along with Roel Rodriguez, Mark Vega, Melba Carvajal, and Susan Lozano
as Investment Officer for the City with authority as a signor on depository
bank accounts, investments, investment accounts and TexPool accounts
according to the City Investment Policy.
Tony Aguirre, Jr., Trustee moved to approve resolution. Charles Amos,
Trustee seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously by those
present.
4.
UTILITY LAYOUTS:
a)
Discussion and Approval of Mar Villa Subdivision
Mr. Carlos Gonzalez presented a 5.923 acre tract property located
approximately 800 feet of N. 29th Street and approximately 1,000 feet south
of Sprague Road. He recommended approval of subdivision as proposed
subject to developer: 1) dedicate a utility easement along perimeter of
property, 2) install public utility infrastructure as proposed, 3) payment of a
sewerline reimbursement in the amount of $3,350.62, payable to MPU for
the Alton Interceptor Sewerline Project.
Tony Aguirre, Jr., Trustee moved to approve Mar Villa Subdivision. Charles
Amos, Trustee seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously by
those present.
b)
Discussion and Possible Action for Cost Participation to the Home 2
Suites Hotel Water Improvements
Mr. Carlos Gonzalez presented a 9 lot subdivision located on the northeast
corner of Ware Road and Galveston Avenue. He stated that the hotel was
approved with conditions that required public water improvements consisted
of the extension of an 8" waterline connection to an existing 12" line located
on the west side of Ware Road to an existing 12" waterline located within
the driveway parking lot the Convention Center. Mr. Gonzalez stated that
the developer formally requested consideration of cost participation for the
offsite waterline.
Page 5 of 6
Mr. Roy Rodriguez stated that the responsibility of installing infrastructure
should be on MPU and not on the Hotel Developer. He recommended that
MPU pay for the installation of a 12" waterline for the amount of $30,000. A
brief discussion ensued in which the Board Members made several
recommendations in which the consensus was to participate on 50% of cost
for waterline.
Veronica Vela-Whitacre, Commissioner/Ex-Officio moved to approve 50%
cost participation on a not-to-exceed amount of $15,000. Tony Aguirre, Jr.,
present.
5.
MANAGER’S REPORT:
a)
Presentation by BBS
Tony Aguirre, Jr., Trustee moved to table BBS report. Charles Amos,
present.
b)
Presentation by McAllen Fire Department
Item for information only.
6.
EXECUTIVE SESSION, CHAPTER 551, TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE,
SECTION 551.071 CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY, SECTION 551.072
LAND TRANSACTION, SECTION 551.074 PERSONNEL MATTERS; SECTION
551.087 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEGOTIATIONS
The Board did not go into executive session.
a)
Consultation with City Attorney Regarding matters to Economic
Development (T.G.C. 551.087)
b)
Consultation with City Attorney Regarding Legal Issues Related to CCN
Approval Process. (T.G.C. 551.071)
ADJOURNMENT
There being no other business to come before the meeting, the meeting was unanimously
adjourned at 4:55 pm.
Page 6 of 6
______________________________
Attest:
______________________________
Nyla L. Flatau, TRMC/CMC
Utility Board Secretary
AGENDA ITEM
2.a.
DATE SUBMITTED
MEETING DATE
02/17/2016
02/23/2016
1. Agenda Item: Consideration and Approval of the Professional Services
Amendment for Big "D" Engineering's Geo-water Project
2. Party Making Request: Carlos Gonzalez, P.E., Utility Engineer
3. Nature of Request: Approval of the Professional Services Amendment for Big
"D" Engineering's Geo-water Project as conditions set forth. Original contract
amount was $50,000.00 proposed contract amendment would add an
additional $21,800.00 yielding a revised contract amount of $71,800.00. Current
budget is $100,000.00.
4. Budgeted:
Bid Amount:
Under Budget:
Budgeted Amount:
Over Budget:
Amount Remaining:
5. Reimbursement: N/A
6. Routing:
Diaz-Limon Jr, Carlos
Noriega, Gerardo
Final Approval - 02/17/2016
7. Staff's Recommendation: Approval of the Professional Services Amendment
for Big "D" Engineering's Geo-water Project as conditions set forth.
8. City Attorney: N/A - KDP
Memo
TO:
J.J. Rodriguez, Asst. General Manager
FROM:
Carlos Gonzalez, P.E., Utility Engineer
DATE:
February 1, 2016
SUBJECT:
Geo-water Feasibility Study - Professional Services Contract
Amendment No. 2 for Big D Engineering
Dario Guerra, P.E., with Big “D” Engineering, presented a Project Status Update Report in
an MPUB workshop meeting on January 12, 2016. As presented in workshop meeting,
Big “D” Engineering is proposing to initiate a Pilot Test Study in partnership with
Occidental Petroleum and Texas A&M University. The Pilot Test Study will include the
use of water treatment equipment owned by Texas A&M University’s Global Petroleum
Research Institute on produce water from an Occidental Petroleum Well.
This amendment will increase original contract amount of $50,000 by $21,800, thus
yielding a new contract amount of $71,800.
Staff recommends approval of professional services contract amendment No. 2.
If additional information is required, please advise.
Big “D” Engineering
P. O. Box 721025, McAllen TX 78504 | (956)960-3201 | [email protected]
February 12, 2016
Mr. Mark Vega
General Manager, McAllen PUB
1300 Houston Ave.
McAllen, TX 78501
Dear Mark:
Big “D” Engineering is pleased to submit a cost proposal for the water treatment phase of the
proposed Geowater project. Big “D” Engineering is proposing to do a pilot study in conjunction
with Texas A & M Global Petroleum Research Institute and Oxy Petroleum. The Pilot study will
demonstrate the technology of membrane filtration of high salinity brines and production of fresh
water meeting the standards for potable water. The study will assist in evaluating the cost
effectiveness of using geothermal power for desalination of the geothermal brine. The information
that is gathered will be used in determining if the geothermal brine water can be economically
treated for potable water use or, if deemed too expensive, the brine will be injected back into the
geothermal formation. This pilot study is only for the water portion of the Geowater project, the
geothermal power pilot demonstration will be done at a later date.
I look forward to working with you and your staff on this ground breaking project, please call me if
you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Dario V. Guerra III, P.E.
Big “D” Engineering
AMENDMENT NO. 2
TO CONTRACT AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES
BETWEEN MCALLEN PUBLIC UTILITY
AND
BIG “D” ENGINEERING
FOR
GEOWATER PROJECT
THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 is made as of February 9, 2016 between McAllen Public
Utility (OWNER) and Big “D” Engineering (ENGINEER) for the Design of Geowater in
Hidalgo County, Texas (the PROJECT).
OWNER and ENGINEER in consideration of their mutual covenants herein agree in
respect of the performance of professional engineering services by ENGINEER and the
payment of those services by OWNER as set forth below.
WHEREAS, the OWNER and the ENGINEER executed the original Contract Agreement
between Owner and Engineer for Engineering/Professional Services on October 15,
2014; and executed Amendment No. 1 to the original Contract on October 13, 2015.
WHEREAS, it has become necessary to amend the contract to: Implement a water
desalination pilot study for the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, premises considered, the OWNER and ENGINEER agree that
said Agreement is amended to include the following Contract modifications:
1. Revise "Part II - Engineering Fees" as follows:
A. Modify maximum amount payable under original Contract Agreement dated
February 9, 2016 as defined below:
Original Contract:
$50,000
Thru Amendment No.1: $0
Thru Amendment No.2: $71,800
Increase of $0
Increase of $21,800
2. Revise "Part V - Article 6, Special Provisions, Exhibits, and Schedules" as follows,
replacing the referenced Exhibits with the revised Exhibits attached hereto:
A.
B.
C.
D.
Section 6.2.1 – Exhibit A “Services to be Provided by the Owner”
Section 6.2.2 – Exhibit B “Services to be Provided by the Engineer”
Section 6.2.3 – Exhibit C "Work Schedule“
Section 6.2.4 – Exhibit D "Contract Rates and Cost Proposal”
ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO 2
Between MCALLEN PUBLIC UTILITY and BIG “D” ENGINEERING
for GEOWATER
Page 1 of 7
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have made and executed this Amendment
as the day and year first above written.
OWNER:
McALLEN PUBLIC UTILITY
Mark Vega, P.E.
General Manager
ENGINEER:
BIG “D” ENGINEERING
DATE
ATTEST:
Nyla Flatau
MPUB Secretary
Dario V. Guerra III, P.E.,
Owner
DATE
ATTEST:
DATE
DATE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Kevin Pagan
City Attorney
DATE
REVIEWED BY:
Gerardo Noriega
DATE
CTPM Director of Purchasing and Contracting
for GEOWATER
Page 2 of 7
EXHIBIT “A”
Services to be Provided by the Owner
GENERAL
The Owner will provide the following:
(1) Authorization to begin work.
(2) Payment for work performed by the Engineer and accepted by the Owner.
(3) Provide full information as to requirements for each Project Service request.
(4) Assist the Engineer by providing all available pertinent information for each Project
Service request, including but not limited to the following:
(a) Provide any available relevant data and reports the Owner may have on file.
(b) Assistance to the Engineer, as necessary, to obtain the required data and information
from other local, regional, State and Federal agencies that the Engineer cannot easily
obtain.
(c) Furnish the Engineer services or data as required such as appropriate professional
interpretations of all of the foregoing; property, boundary, easement, right-of-way,
zoning, and deed restrictions; all of which the Engineer may rely upon in performing his
services under this agreement.
(5) Guarantee access to and make all provisions for the Engineer to enter upon public and
private property as required for the Engineer to perform services under this Agreement.
for GEOWATER
Page 3 of 7
EXHIBIT B
ENGINEERING SERVICES
DESCRIPTION OF ENGINEERING SERVICES AND RELATED
MATTERS: Services to be Provided by the ENGINEER
INTRODUCTION
Big “D” Engineering (ENGINEER) is pleased to present this proposal to McAllen Public Utility
(OWNER) for Geowater, a strategy to develop a potable water source through desalination of
brackish water using energy extracted from pressurized, geothermal brine water found in deep
geological formations under the City of McAllen.
HISTORY
The ENGINEER contacted with the OWNER in 2014 to propose the Geowater concept for
potable water production using geothermal energy. The ENGINEER assisted the OWNER in
submitting a preliminary application to the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) under its
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program (DWSRF). The OWNER has been invited by
the TWDB to participate in 2015 and is currently approved to apply for a low interest loan to
accomplish Planning, Acquisition and Design of the Project.
The original contract was to develop a Preliminary Engineering Feasibility Report that
recommended to use geothermal energy to deliver and treat existing brackish groundwater and
possibly treat the geothermal brine water to achieve a new potable water resource.
The ENGINEER is to develop and test a pilot system that is expected to yield important
information on the cost benefit analysis and also conclusions on the technical and economic
viability for moving forward.
The ENGINEER continues to also seek more favorable funding sources that may be added or
substituted for the DWSRF funding at MPU’s option. A pilot phase 2 project will be designed to
demonstrate practical feasibility of the Geowater process specific to McAllen conditions.
The ENGINEER will provide the following tasks:
TASK-1: PILOT SYSTEM PROJECT COORDINATION
The ENGINEER shall attend preliminary meetings to coordinate with Occidental Petroleum,
Texas A&M and OWNER for implementation of a weeklong geothermal brine water pilot study
and testing program. This task will utilize Occidental Petroleum’s gas producing wells current
produced water and take a sample via vacuum truck to the Texas A&M University Global
Petroleum Research Institute’s Mobile Trailer. The study will be used to finalize the proposed
treatment process and cost estimates for the Final Engineering Feasibility Report.
for GEOWATER
Page 4 of 7
The Engineer shall submit a sample of the Geothermal brine to Texas A & M University Global
Petroleum Research Institute for their preliminary analysis, prior to the Mobile Units
deployment.
TASK-2: PILOT SITE SELECTION & DATA COLLECTION
The ENGINEER shall coordinate with Owner to select a pilot location. The Engineer will
develop a site plan for the Texas A & M‘s Mobile Unit. The location of the Texas A & M ‘s
Mobile Unit will be on the OWNERS property and located near existing production and disposal
wells that are available for geothermal brine treatment pilot testing.
The ENGINEER shall develop a field trial and testing program sometime in early 2016 with
Texas A&M University Global Petroleum Research Institute’s desalination system. The pilot
system will be configured to treat the geothermal brine water to provide 97% ion free water that
would meet National Public Drinking Water Rule’s regulations for fresh water.
TASK-3: DRAFT AND FINAL PILOT REPORTS
The ENGINEER will document and prepare a Preliminary and Final Pilot Report to document
pilot testing results, recommendations and cost estimates for full-scale implementation.
The ENGINEER shall furnish all equipment, materials, supplies, and incidentals as needed to
perform the services required.
The ENGINEER will perform all work efforts and prepare all deliverables in accordance with
the applicable/current requirements of the OWNER.
for GEOWATER
Page 5 of 7
EXHIBIT C
WORK SCHEDULE
The estimated work schedule for all phases of the project is three (3) months according to the
schedule below.
DESCRIPTION OF TASK
Notice to Proceed
Coordination with Oxy & Texas
A&M
Site Plan & Installation
Gather & Review Data Pilot
Develop Draft Pilot Report
Develop Final Pilot Report
START POINT
February 9th 2016
February 9th 2016
February 18th 2016
March 3rd 2016
March 17th 2016
April 8th 2016
for GEOWATER
DURATION
12
2
2
3
4
UNIT OF
TIME
Weeks
Weeks
Weeks
Weeks
Weeks
Page 6 of 7
EXHIBIT D
McALLEN PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD
Major Task - Provide engineering support to further the GeoWater project for City of McAllen
Task Description
TASK-1: Pilot System Coordination
TASK-2: Pilot Selection & Gather Data
TASK-3: Develop Reports
TOTAL HOURS
BILLING RATE (Incl. OH & Profit)
SUBTOTAL - LABOR COST
SPECIAL SERVICES / SUBCONSULTANTS
Principal
3
2
2
7
$137.50
$962.50
Project
Manager
Eng. 1
10
20
20
20
30
35
50
$100.00
$5,000.00
85
$87.50
$7,437.50
Eng. 2
Admin.
Assist.
Tech Support 2
10
10
10
0
$87.50
$0.00
5
10
10
30
$50.00
$1,500.00
0
$50.00
$0.00
25
$37.50
$937.50
DIRECT EXPENSES
Auto Mileage (@ $0.55/mile)
Copies
Water Samples
Photos
Commercial Printing
Travel/Meals/Lodging
Supplies
Postage
AirFare
SUBTOTAL - SPECIAL SERVICES
SUMMARY
Tech
Support 1
20
50
$200
3
$500
1
$550.00
$200.00
$3,000.00
$150.00
$350.00
$600.00
$500.00
$112.50
$500.00
$0.00 SUBTOTAL - EXPENSES
LABOR
SPECIAL SERVICES / SUBCONSULTANTS (@ 10% Markup)
EXPENSES
TOTAL FEE ESTIMATE:
for GEOWATER
$5,962.50
x 1.10
x 1.00
x 1.10
x 1.00
$15,837.50
$0.00
$5,962.50
$21,800.00
Page 7 of 7
AGENDA ITEM
2.b.
DATE SUBMITTED
MEETING DATE
02/17/2016
02/23/2016
1. Agenda Item: Award of Contract for the purchase of Forty (40) New 2016
Vehicles for Various City Departments.
2. Party Making Request: Public Works - Carlos A. Sanchez
3. Nature of Request: Request authorization to award multiple Purchase
Contracts to the lowest responsive and responsible bidders meeting the
minimum requirements of the specifications as outlined on attached
memorandum and summarized below.
4. Budgeted:
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Bid Amount:
Under Budget:
Yes
$25,227.00
$24,814.00
$33,211.00
$28,292.00
$39,040.00
$23,985.00
$0.00
$1,186.00
$1,789.00
$8,708.00
$2,960.00
$1,015.00
Budgeted Amount:
Over Budget:
Amount Remaining:
5. Reimbursement:
$25,000.00
$26,000.00
$35,000.00
$37,000.00
$42,000.00
$25,000.00
$227.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
6. Routing:
Palacios, Dicla
Sanchez, Carlos
Noriega, Gerardo
Approved - 02/17/2016
7. Staff's Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Commission
authorize staff to issue a Purchase Contract to Tipton Motors from
Brownsville, TX for items 1A, 1M, 1O, 1Q. Caldwell Country Chevrolet from
Caldwell, TX for Item 1D. Silsbee Ford from Silsbee, TX for Item 1E.
BID OPENING: January 28, 2016 at 3:00 p.m.
LOCATION: Conference Room 1A (1st floor) McAllen City Hall
PROJECT NO: 01-16-P09-55 Purchase of Forty (40) New 2016 Vehicles
Yellow Shading depicts Recommended Vendor
CALDWELL COUNTRY CHEVROLET
BOSWELL ELLIFF FORD
TIPTON MOTORS, INC.
RANDALL REED'S PRESTIGE FORD
SILSBEE FORD
TOTAL AMOUNT OVER BUDGET
BIDDERS:
ACCOUNT FUND
CALDWELL, TEXAS
DESCRIPTION
1 071-80
UOM
ITEM NO. 1A – SPECIFICATIONS FOR ITEM 1A FOR THE PURCHASE OF FIVE (5)
2016 MID-SIZE, 2WD, 4-DOOR SPORT UTILITY VEHICLE (2-Fire) (1-Risk) (1Planning) (1-Wastewater Plant) AS PER SPECIFICATIONS. INDICATE YEAR,
MANUFACTURER, MODEL, STANDARD WARRANTY TERMS/CONDITIONS,
DELIVERY DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF ORDER (ARO) IN COMMENT AREA
QTY
EA
5
DELIVERY
2 071-80
EXTENDED
EA
1
$25,640.00
$128,200.00
EA
1
YEAR/MAKE/MODEL
DELIVERY
4 072-02
ITEM NO. 1D. - SPECIFICATIONS FOR ITEM 1D. FOR THE PURCHASE OF TWO (2)
2016 ½ TON, REGULAR CAB PICK-UP (SHORTBED, 2WD, GAS) (Meter Readers)
AS PER SPECIFICATIONS. INDICATE YEAR, MANUFACTURER, MODEL, STANDARD
WARRANTY TERMS/CONDITIONS, DELIVERY DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF ORDER
(ARO) IN COMMENT AREA
EA
2
DELIVERY
5 072-02
EA
1
YEAR/MAKE/MODEL
DELIVERY
6 072-02
1 of 4
ITEM NO 1F. - SPECIFICATIONS FOR ITEM 1F. FOR THE PURCHASE OF – EIGHT (8)
2016 ½ TON, EXTENDED CAB PICK-UPS (SHORTBED, 4WD, GAS) AS PER
SPECIFICATIONS. INDICATE YEAR, MANUFACTURER, MODEL, STANDARD
EXTENDED
UNIT
EXTENDED
UNIT
EA
8
$26,376.00
$131,880.00
$25,227.00
$126,135.00
$25,350.00
$126,750.00
$25,781.18
2016 FORD EXPLORER
120 DAYS
60 - 90 DAYS
90 - 120 DAYS
60 - 90 DAYS
90 DAYS
$31,410.00
$28,880.00
$28,880.00
$31,410.00
$31,636.00
$31,636.00
$29,850.00
$29,850.00
2016 FORD EXPEDITION
2016 FORD EXPEDITION - SSV
90 - 120 DAYS
60 - 90 DAYS
90 DAYS
$23,141.00
$23,141.00
$22,700.00
$22,700.00
2016 FORD TRANSIT
2016 FORD TRANSIT - T150
180 DAYS
90 - 120 DAYS
75 - 90 DAYS
$39,040.00
120 DAYS
$24,980.00
$24,980.00
$29,367.45
60 - 90 DAYS
2016 CHEVROLET EXPRESS 3500 CG33405
$19,520.00
$29,367.45
NO BID
$19,695.00
$39,390.00
$19,879.00
$39,758.00
$19,900.00
$39,800.00
NO BID
$19,899.36
$39,798.72
2016 FORD F150
FORD F150
2016 FORD F150 1/2 TON REGULAR CAB
2016 FORD F150
60 - 90 DAYS
90 - 120 DAYS
75 - 90 DAYS
90 DAYS
$24,390.00
$24,390.00
$24,259.00
$24,259.00
$24,300.00
$24,300.00
$23,985.00
$23,985.00
2016 SILVERADO 1500 CREW CAB
2016 FORD F150 CREW CAB
2016 FORD F150
2016 FORD F150 1/2 TON CREW CAB
120 DAYS
60 - 90 DAYS
90 - 120 DAYS
75 - 90 DAYS
90 DAYS
$29,215.00
$233,720.00
$30,640.00
$245,120.00
$30,535.58
$244,284.64
$30,300.00
$242,400.00
$29,905.27
EC1613 - (2) FIRE
EC1602 - (1) PLANNING
FIRE - $29,546.00 UNDER
PLANNING - $3,773.00 UNDER
GENERAL DEPRICIATION FUND
$75,681.00
RISK CAPITAL OUTLAY
$25,227.00
$128,905.90
2016 FORD EXPLORER - BASE
NO BID
Total Cost For Item Per Fund
TOTAL AMOUNT UNDER BUDGET
EXTENDED
2016 FORD EXPLORER
YEAR/MAKE/MODEL 2016 SILVERADO 1500 REG CAB SWB CC15703
ITEM NO. 1E. - SPECIFICATIONS FOR ITEM 1 E. FOR THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1)
2016 ½ TON, CREW CAB PICK-UP (SHORTBED, 2WD, GAS) (Trans. & Dist.). AS
PER SPECIFICATIONS. INDICATE YEAR, MANUFACTURER, MODEL, STANDARD
UNIT
SILSBEE, TEXAS
2016 FORD EXPLORER
DELIVERY
3 071-90
EXTENDED
GARLAND, TEXAS
2016 CHEVROLET TRAVERSE LS CR14526
YEAR/MAKE/MODEL
ITEM NO. 1C - SPECIFICATIONS FOR ITEM 1C. FOR THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1)
2016 ½ TON FULL-SIZE CARGO VAN (2WD, GAS) (IT). AS PER SPECIFICATIONS.
INDICATE YEAR, MANUFACTURER, MODEL, STANDARD WARRANTY
TERMS/CONDITIONS, DELIVERY DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF ORDER (ARO) IN
COMMENT AREA
UNIT
BROWNSVILLE, TEXAS
678-6382-426-66-14
678-6382-416-66-14
YEAR/MAKE/MODEL
ITEM NO. 1B – SPECIFICATIONS FOR ITEM 1B. FOR THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1)
2016 FULL-SIZE, 2WD, 4-DOOR SPORT UTILITY VEHICLE (Fire). AS PER
UNIT
SAN BENITO, TEXAS
PROJECT CODE
$239,242.16
690-6160-476-66-14
N/A - (1) RISK
RISK - $773.00 UNDER
460-4110-446-66-14
N/A - (1) WASTEWATER
PLANT
WASTEWATER PLANT - $227.00 OVER
678-6382-426-66-14
EC1614 - (1) FIRE
FIRE - $10,632.55 UNDER
$29,367.45
678-6382-416-66-14
EC1603
IT - $4,300.00 UNDER
$22,700.00
410-4040-446-66-14
N/A
METER READERS - $2,960.00 UNDER
WATER DEPRECIATION FUND
$39,040.00
410-4030-446-66-14
N/A
TRANS & DIST - $1,015.00 UNDER
$23,985.00
678-6382-456-66-14
EC1622
HEALTH - $2,520.00 OVER
GENERAL DEPRECIATION FUND
WASTEWATER DEPRECIATION FUND
$25,227.00
$233,720.00
Copy of 2016 Bid Tab - Forty (40) 2016 City Vehicles BID TAB
BOSWELL ELLIFF FORD
TIPTON MOTORS, INC.
SILSBEE FORD
BIDDERS:
ACCOUNT FUND
CALDWELL, TEXAS
DESCRIPTION
UOM
QTY
YEAR/MAKE/MODEL
DELIVERY
7 072-02
ITEM NO. 1G. - SPECIFICATIONS FOR ITEM 1G. FOR THE PURCHASE OF – ONE (1)
2016 ½ TON, EXTENDED CAB PICK-UP (SHORTBED, 4WD, GAS) (Airport) AS PER
EA
1
YEAR/MAKE/MODEL
DELIVERY
8 072-02
ITEM NO. 1H. - SPECIFICATIONS FOR ITEM 1H. FOR THE PURCHASE OF – TWO (2)
2016 ½ TON, EXTENDED CAB PICK-UP (SHORTBED, 4WD, GAS) (Police)AS PER
EA
2
YEAR/MAKE/MODEL
DELIVERY
9 072-02
ITEM NO. 1I. -SPECIFICATIONS FOR ITEM 1I FOR THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) 2016
½ TON, CREW CAB PICK-UP (SHORTBED, 4WD, GAS) (Airport) AS PER
EA
1
YEAR/MAKE/MODEL
DELIVERY
10 072-02
ITEM NO. 1J. - SPECIFICATIONS FOR ITEM 1J. FOR THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1)
2016 ½ TON, CREW CAB PICK-UP W/BED CAP AND BED LINER (SHORTBED, 4WD,
GAS) (Fire) AS PER SPECIFICATIONS. INDICATE YEAR, MANUFACTURER, MODEL,
STANDARD WARRANTY TERMS/CONDITIONS, DELIVERY DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF
ORDER (ARO) IN COMMENT AREA
EA
1
UNIT
SAN BENITO, TEXAS
EXTENDED
UNIT
EXTENDED
BROWNSVILLE, TEXAS
UNIT
EXTENDED
GARLAND, TEXAS
UNIT
EXTENDED
EA
1
2016 FORD F150
2016 FORD F150 1/2 TON EXTENDED CAB 4X4
2016 FORD F150 EXTENDED CAB
60 - 90 DAYS
90 - 120 DAYS
75 - 90 DAYS
90 - 120 DAYS
$25,740.00
$26,515.00
$26,515.00
$26,387.00
$26,387.00
$26,500.00
2 of 4
EA
2
$26,256.36
$26,256.36
2016 FORD F150 SUPERCAB 4X4
2016 FORD F150
2016 FORD EXTENDED CAB
120 DAYS
60 - 90 DAYS
90 - 120 DAYS
75 - 90 DAYS
90 DAYS
$25,420.00
$50,840.00
$26,600.00
$53,200.00
$26,468.00
$52,936.00
$26,500.00
$53,000.00
$26,477.36
$52,954.72
2016 SILVERADO DOUBLE CAB CK15753
2016 FORD F150
2016 FORD F150 EXTENDED CAB
120 DAYS
60 - 90 DAYS
90 - 120 DAYS
75 - 90 DAYS
90 DAYS
$28,335.00
$28,335.00
$29,160.00
$29,160.00
$28,839.00
$28,839.00
$30,100.00
$30,100.00
$28,923.36
$28,923.36
2016 SILVERADO CREW CAB 4X4 CK15743
2016 FORD F150
2016 FORD F150 1/2 TON CREW CAB 4X4
2016 FORD F150 CREW CAB 4X4
120 -DAYS
60 - 90 DAYS
90 - 120 DAYS
75 - 90 DAYS
90 DAYS
NO BID
NO BID
NO BID
NO BID
DELIVERY
12 072-02
$26,500.00
2016 SILVERADO DOUBLE CAB 4X4 CK15753
YEAR/MAKE/MODEL
ITEM NO. 1L. - SPECIFICATIONS FOR ITEM FOR 1L. FOR THE PURCHASE OF TWO
(2) 2016 ¾ TON REGULAR CAB & CHASSIS (SRW, GAS, 2WD) W/UTILITY SERVICE
BODY (Parks) AS PER SPECIFICATIONS. INDICATE YEAR, MANUFACTURER,
MODEL, STANDARD WARRANTY TERMS/CONDITIONS, DELIVERY DAYS AFTER
RECEIPT OF ORDER (ARO) IN COMMENT AREA
EXTENDED
2016 FORD SUPERCAB 4X4
$38,800.00
NO BID
$25,500.00
$25,500.00
$23,921.00
$23,921.00
$38,800.00
$41,219.61
$41,219.61
2016 FORD F150
75 - 90 DAYS
120 DAYS
DELIVERY
11 072-02
UNIT
120 - 135 DAYS
YEAR/MAKE/MODEL
ITEM NO. 1K. - SPECIFICATIONS FOR ITEM 1K. FOR THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1)
2016 ¾ TON EXTENDED CARGO VAN (2WD, GAS) (Police). AS PER
SILSBEE, TEXAS
2016 SILVERADO 1500 DOUBLE CAB 4X4
CK15753
$25,740.00
$24,300.00
$24,300.00
$24,034.36
$24,034.36
2016 FORD TRANSIT
2016 FORD TRANSIT
2016 FORD TRANSIT - T250
2016 FORD TRANSIT VAN
60 - 90 DAYS
90 - 120 DAYS
75 - 90 DAYS
120 DAYS
$33,625.00
$67,250.00
$42,515.07
$85,030.14
$30,680.00
PROJECT CODE
$61,360.00
$32,718.54
$65,437.08
678-6382-456-66-14
EC1622
550-4860-446-66-14
HEALTH - $2,520.00 OVER
$233,720.00
N/A
AIRPORT - $740.00 OVER
AIRPORT CAPITAL OUTLAY
678-6382-426-66-14
EC1606
POLICE - $7,160.00 UNDER
550-4860-446-66-14
N/A
AIRPORT - $3,335.00 OVER
678-6382-426-66-14
EC1610
FIRE - $1,200.00 UNDER
$38,800.00
678-6382-426-66-14
EC1608
POLICE - $6,079.00 UNDER
$23,921.00
678-6382-426-66-14
EC1623
PARKS - $16,640.00 UNDER
$61,360.00
$25,740.00
$50,840.00
$28,335.00
BOSWELL ELLIFF FORD
TIPTON MOTORS, INC.
SILSBEE FORD
BIDDERS:
ACCOUNT FUND
CALDWELL, TEXAS
DESCRIPTION
UOM
QTY
UNIT
NO BID
YEAR/MAKE/MODEL
DELIVERY
13 072-02
ITEM NO. 1M. - SPECIFICATIONS FOR ITEM FOR 1M. FOR THE PURCHASE OF ONE
(1) 2016 ¾ TON EXTENDED CABPICK-UP (SHORTBED, 2WD, GAS) (Water Plant)
AS PER SPECIFICATIONS. INDICATE YEAR, MANUFACTURER, MODEL, STANDARD
EA
1
NO BID
YEAR/MAKE/MODEL
DELIVERY
14 072-02
ITEM NO. 1N. - SPECIFICATIONS FOR ITEM FOR 1N FOR THE PURCHASE OF ONE
(1) 2016 ¾ TON EXTENDED CAB PICK-UP (LONGBED, GAS, 4WD) (Animal
Control)AS PER SPECIFICATIONS. INDICATE YEAR, MANUFACTURER, MODEL,
EA
1
NO BID
YEAR/MAKE/MODEL
DELIVERY
15 072-02
ITEM NO. 1O. - SPECIFICATIONS FOR ITEM ITEM 1O. FOR THE PURCHASE OF
ONE (1) 2016 ¾ TON CREW CAB PICK-UP TRUCK (SHORTBED, DIESEL, 2WD)
(Trans. & Dist.) AS PER SPECIFICATIONS. INDICATE YEAR, MANUFACTURER,
NO BID
EA
1
YEAR/MAKE/MODEL
DELIVERY
16 072-02
ITEM NO. 1P. - SPECIFICATIONS FOR ITEM 1P. FOR THE PURCHASE OF TWO (2)
2016 ¾ TON CREW CAB PICK-UP (LONG BED, DIESEL, 2WD) (Parks) AS PER
NO BID
EA
2
YEAR/MAKE/MODEL
DELIVERY
17 072-02
ITEM NO. 1Q. - SPECIFICATIONS FOR ITEM 1Q. FOR THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1)
2016 ¾ TON CREW CAB PICK-UP (SHORTBED, GAS, 4WD) (Sewer
Administration) AS PER SPECIFICATIONS. INDICATE YEAR, MANUFACTURER,
EA
1
NO BID
YEAR/MAKE/MODEL
DELIVERY
18 072-02
ITEM NO. 1R. - SPECIFICATIONS FOR ITEM 1R. FOR THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1)
2016 ¾ TON CREW CAB PICK-UP (SHORTBED, DIESEL, 4WD) (Drainage) AS PER
EA
1
NO BID
YEAR/MAKE/MODEL
DELIVERY
19 072-02
ITEM NO. 1S. - SPECIFICATIONS FOR ITEM 1S. FOR THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1)
2016 ¾ TON CREW CAB PICK-UP TRUCK (SHORTBED, DIESEL, 4WD) (Fire) AS PER
EA
1
YEAR/MAKE/MODEL
3 of 4
NO BID
EXTENDED
SAN BENITO, TEXAS
UNIT
EXTENDED
BROWNSVILLE, TEXAS
UNIT
EXTENDED
GARLAND, TEXAS
UNIT
SILSBEE, TEXAS
EXTENDED
2016 FORD F250
2016 FORD F250
2016 FORD F250 3/4 TON REGULAR CAB (1) WITH LIFT GATE
(1) WITHOUT LIFT GATE
60 - 90 DAYS
140 - 150 DAYS
75 - 90 - 120 DAYS
$25,360.00
$25,360.00
$24,814.00
$24,814.00
$26,000.00
$26,000.00
UNIT
EXTENDED
2016 FORD F250 REGULAR CAB
120 DAYS
$25,308.54
$25,308.54
2016 FORD F250 S/CAB
2016 FORD F250
2016 FORD F250 3/4 TON EXTENDED CAB
2016 FORD 3/4 TON EXTENDED CAB 4X4
60 - 90 DAYS
90 - 120 DAYS
76 - 90 DAYS
90 DAYS
$27,840.00
$27,840.00
$27,268.00
$27,268.00
$27,600.00
$27,600.00
$27,939.54
$27,939.54
2016 FORD F250 SUPERCAB
2016 FORD F250
2016 FORD F250 EXTENDED CAB 4X4
60 - 90 DAYS
90 - 120 DAYS
75 - 90 DAYS
90 DAYS
$33,635.00
$33,635.00
$33,211.00
$33,211.00
$33,800.00
$33,800.00
$33,622.10
2016 FORD F250
2016 FORD
60 - 90 DAYS
90 - 120 DAYS
75 - 90 DAYS
90 DAYS
$33,665.00
$67,330.00
$33,259.00
$66,518.00
$67,000.00
$134,000.00
$33,722.10
$33,622.10
$67,444.20
2016 FORD F250
60 - 90 DAYS
90 - 120 DAYS
75 - 90 DAYS
90 DAYS
$28,865.00
$28,865.00
$28,292.00
$28,292.00
$28,700.00
$28,700.00
$28,918.54
$28,918.54
2016 FORD F250
60 - 90 DAYS
90 - 120 DAYS
75 - 90 DAYS
90 DAYS
$40,725.00
$40,725.00
$40,155.33
$40,155.33
$40,400.00
$40,400.00
$418,140.86
$418,140.86
2016 FORD F250
60 - 90 DAYS
90 - 120 DAYS
75 - 90 DAYS
120 DAYS
$47,250.00
$47,250.00
$49,667.17
$49,667.17
2016 FORD F250
$45,600.00
PROJECT CODE
$45,600.00
$48,769.29
$48,769.29
678-6382-426-66-14
EC1623
410-4010-446-66-14
N/A
WATER PLANT - $1,186.00 UNDER
678-6382-426-66-14
EC1609
ANIMAL CONTROL - $2,732.00 UNDER
410-4030-446-66-14
N/A
TRANS & DIST - $1,789.00 UNDER
678-6382-426-66-14
EC1624
460-4160-446-66-14
N/A
SEWER ADMINISTRATION - $8,708.00 UNDER
678-6382-436-66-14
EC1621
DRAINAGE - $155.33 OVER
$40,155.33
678-6382-426-66-14
EC1611
FIRE - $5,600.00 OVER
$45,600.00
WASTEWATER DEPRECIATION FUND
$61,360.00
$24,814.00
$27,268.00
$33,211.00
$66,518.00
$28,292.00
2016 FORD F250 SHORTBED
BOSWELL ELLIFF FORD
TIPTON MOTORS, INC.
SILSBEE FORD
BIDDERS:
ACCOUNT FUND
NO BID
CALDWELL, TEXAS
DESCRIPTION
UOM
QTY
UNIT
EXTENDED
DELIVERY
20 072-02
ITEM NO 1.T. - SPECIFICATIONS FOR ITEM 1T. FOR THE PURCHASE OF THREE (3)
2016 1-TON SINGLE CAB & CHASSIS (SRW, DIESEL, 2WD) W/UTILITY SERVICE
BODY (1-Parks, 2-Traffic)AS PER SPECIFICATIONS. INDICATE YEAR,
MANUFACTURER, MODEL, STANDARD WARRANTY TERMS/CONDITIONS,
DELIVERY DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF ORDER (ARO) IN COMMENT AREA
SAN BENITO, TEXAS
UNIT
EXTENDED
60 - 90 DAYS
BROWNSVILLE, TEXAS
UNIT
EXTENDED
GARLAND, TEXAS
UNIT
SILSBEE, TEXAS
EXTENDED
90 - 120 DAYS
678-6382-426-66-14
75 - 90 DAYS
UNIT
3
NO BID
$46,070.00
$138,210.00
$45,015.98
$135,047.94
$39,934.00
EXTENDED
DELIVERY
21 072-02
ITEM NO. 1U. - SPECIFICATIONS FOR ITEM 1U. FOR THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1)
2016 1-TON SINGLE CAB & CHASSIS (DRW, DIESEL, 2WD) W/UTILITY SERVICE
BODY (Traffic)AS PER SPECIFICATIONS. INDICATE YEAR, MANUFACTURER,
EA
1
NO BID
YEAR/MAKE/MODEL
DELIVERY
22 072-05
ITEM NO 1V. - SPECIFICATIONS FOR ITEM 1V FOR THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1)
2016 19,000 GVW REGULAR CAB & CHASSIS (DRW, LONGBED, DIESEL, 2WD)
(Parks) AS PER SPECIFICATIONS. INDICATE YEAR, MANUFACTURER, MODEL,
EA
1
NO BID
YEAR/MAKE/MODEL
23 072-05
NO BID
EA
2016 FORD F350
60 - 90 DAYS
140 - 150 DAYS
$50,200.00
$50,200.00
$119,802.00
$45,639.62
$48,914.20
$48,914.20
$44,500.00
$44,500.00
$49,361.62
$49,361.62
2016 FORD F350
FORD F350 1 TON REGULAR CAB
2016 FORD F350 CAB & CHASS
140 - 150 DAYS
75 - 90 - 120 DAYS
90 - 120 DAYS
$50,455.00
$50,455.00
$48,961.15
$48,961.15
2016 FORD F450
*LOW BIDDER
BID A F450 TRUCK - DOES NOT MEET
GVWR SPECS
60 - 90 DAYS
140 - 150 DAYS
NO BID
NO BID
1
$49,600.00
$49,600.00
$45,600.00
$135,047.94
TRAFFIC - $6,031.96 OVER
678-6382-426-66-14
EC1625 - (1) PARKS
PARKS - $10,015.98 OVER
678-6382-426-66-14
EC1615
TRAFFIC - $2,500.00 OVER
$44,500.00
NO BID
011-5104-466-66-14
N/A
PARKS CAPITAL OUTLAY
$49,600.00
678-6382-426-66-14
EC1612
FIRE - $3,600.00 UNDER
$56,400.00
75 - 90 - 120 DAYS
$56,400.00
$56,400.00
DELIVERY
90 -120 DAYS
2016 F350
YEAR/MAKE/MODEL
$60,412.21
$60,412.21
2016 FORD F550
75 - 90 -120 DAYS
120 - 160 DAYS
Funding Source Analysis
$559,735.00
$1,183,685.00
$1,209,175.57
$1,326,262.00
$1,596,960.48
ADDENDUM # 1
ACKNOWLEDGED
ACKNOWLEDGED
NOT ACKNOWLEDGED
ACKNOWLEDGED
ACKNOWLEDGED
Total Bid Amounts
Amount Over or Under Budget
ADDENDUM # 2
ACKNOWLEDGED
ACKNOWLEDGED
ACKNOWLEDGED
ACKNOWLEDGED
ACKNOWLEDGED
$951,878.72
$72,321.28
HARD COPY SUBMITTED
SUBMITTED
SUBMITTED
SUBMITTED
SUBMITTED
SUBMITTED
$53,519.00
$8,481.00
WASTE WATER DEPRECIATION FUND
ELECTRONIC COPY SUBMITTED
SUBMITTED
SUBMITTED
SUBMITTED
SUBMITTED
SUBMITTED
$121,050.00
$6,950.00
$49,600.00
$5,400.00
PARKS CAPITAL OUTLAY
$54,075.00
$4,075.00
$25,227.00
$773.00
RISK CAPITAL OUTLAY
GRAND TOTAL
4 of 4
2016 FORD F350 CAB & CHASS
75 - 90 - 120 DAYS
EC1615 - (2) TRAFFIC
$136,918.86
60 - 90 DAYS
2016 F550
DELIVERY
ITEM NO. 1X. - SPECIFICATIONS FOR ITEM 1 X. FOR THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1)
2016 19,000 GVW REGULAR CAB & CHASSIS (DRW, DIESEL, 2WD) W/FLAT BED
BODY, FUEL DELIVERY TANKS AND EQUIPMENT (Fire) AS PER SPECIFICATIONS.
INDICATE YEAR, MANUFACTURER, MODEL, STANDARD WARRANTY
TERMS/CONDITIONS, DELIVERY DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF ORDER (ARO) IN
COMMENT AREA
2016 F350 REGULAR CAB
FIRE - $5,600.00 OVER
120 DAYS
2016 FORD F350
*LOW BIDDER
DOES NOT MEET SERVICE BODY LENGTH SPECS
YEAR/MAKE/MODEL
EC1611
678-6382-426-66-14
EA
PROJECT CODE
Fund
PUBLIC WORKS
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mark Vega, P.E., General Manager
FROM:
Carlos A. Sanchez, P.E., CFM, CPM, Director of Public Works
DATE:
February 2, 2016
SUBJECT:
Project No. 01-16-P09-55
Award of Contract - Purchase of Forty (40) 2016 Vehicles
City (33) Vehicles and MPU (7) Vehicles
GOAL: Fleet Operations Department requests your authorization to award multiple Purchase Contracts to
the lowest responsive and responsible bidders meeting the requirements of the specifications and bid
solicitation documents. Recommendations are based on a per item basis. Attached, for your review, is the
Bid Tabulation depicting the proposed vendor(s) to be contracted with, upon Public Utility Board approval.
BRIEF EXPLANATION: On January 14, 2016, Public Works through the Purchasing and Contracting
Department solicited formal bids for the purchase of Forty (40) 2016 Vehicles for various departments (33City and 7-MPU). A total of five (5) vendors responded to our solicitation providing their pricing structure
reflecting dealer pricing.
HISTORY: Historically, the City solicits sealed bids for vehicles that have reached and/or surpassed their life
expectancy, and have been recommended for replacement. (Please note that all vehicles due for
replacement have gone through the justification and budget approval process).
OPTIONS: 1. Award Purchase Contracts as outlined below.
2. The Public Utility Board may elect to direct staff to reject any or all bids received and to
re-advertise this project.
RECOMMENDED VENDOR
Tipton Motors
from Brownsville, TX
Caldwell Country Chevrolet
from Caldwell, TX
Silsbee Ford
from Silsbee, TX
ITEM NUMBER
1A, 1M, 1O, 1Q
TOTAL CONTRACT
AMOUNT
$111,544.00
1D
$39,040.00
1E
GRAND TOTAL:
$23,985.00
$174,569.00
RECOMMENDATION DETAILS: Staff recommends that the Public Utility Board authorize staff to issue a
Purchase Contract to Tipton Motors from Brownsville, TX for items 1A, 1M, 1O, 1Q. Caldwell Country
Chevrolet from Caldwell, TX for Items 1D. Silsbee Ford from Silsbee, TX for Items 1E.
AGENDA ITEM
2.c.
DATE SUBMITTED
MEETING DATE
02/17/2016
02/23/2016
1. Agenda Item: 16th & Beech Lift Station and Sanitary Sewer Pipe Replacement
Project Revised Fee Proposal
2. Party Making Request: Sergio Espinoza, PE; Wastewater Utility Engineer
3. Nature of Request: Depreciation Project
4. Budgeted:
Bid Amount:
Under Budget:
Budgeted Amount:
Over Budget:
Amount Remaining:
5. Reimbursement:
6. Routing:
Espinoza, Sergio
7. Staff's Recommendation: Staff Recommends Approval of the Additional
Services with Gravity Option for a Total Amount of $493,110.00
MCALLEN PUBLIC UTILITY
Memo
To:
Mark Vega, General Manager
From:
Sergio Espinoza, Utility Engineer
Date:
February 17, 2016
Re:
Professional Engineering Services for the 16th & Beech Lift Station and Sewer Pipe
Replacement Project
At the Board Meeting held December 15, 2015, the MPU Board approved professional
engineering services in the amount of $395,055.00 for the design and construction phase
services for replacing the existing lift station and replacing portions of the existing gravity
sewer line.
Subsequently, MPU staff considered the option of adding an alternate design that would
eliminate the lift station with a new gravity sewer line system. This alternate design would
be incorporated into the bid package so that MPU may compare and select the most cost
effective option at bid phase.
The 29th & Ebony junction structure has an existing sub-out that would allow for the new
sanitary sewer line to flow by gravity. MPU staff asked Perez Consulting Engineers to
submit a revised fee proposal to incorporate the new gravity sewer line. The revised fee
includes the new sewer gravity line design in the amount of $98,055.00, for a total not-toexceed amount of $493,110.00. Attached is the Engineer’s task fee breakdown.
MPU staff is recommending Board consideration and approval of the revised fee in the
amount of $493,110.00
Fund: Sewer Depreciation
Budgeted Amount: $4,500,000.00
Please let me know if you require additional information.
Page 1 of 1
AGENDA ITEM
2.d.
DATE SUBMITTED
MEETING DATE
02/17/2016
02/23/2016
1. Agenda Item: Consideration and Approval of Purchase of One (1) 2016 CM
Combination Vacuum Flush Truck
2. Party Making Request: Oscar J. Hinojosa, Assistant Director of Wastewater
Systems
3. Nature of Request: Award of purchase to Freightliner of Austin - Austin Truck
& Equipment from Austin, TX to include selection of Alternate Item No. 1, 2,
and 3 for a grand total of $316,875.
4. Budgeted:
Bid Amount:
Under Budget:
Budgeted Amount:
Over Budget:
Amount Remaining:
5. Reimbursement: Not Applicable
6. Routing:
Shelton, Edith
Noriega, Gerardo
7. Staff's Recommendation: Approval as presented.
PREPARED:01/28/2016LV
RECOMMENDED
BID OPENING: JANUARY 26, 2016 AT 4:00 P.M.
LOCATION: Conference Room #2A
PROJECT #01-16-P10-46 PURCHASE OF ONE (1) 2016 CAB & CHASSIS W/CM TRUCK MOUNTED COMBINATION SEWER AND CATCH BASIN CLEANING UNIT
WAUKESHA
PEARCE
INDUSTRIES
BIDDERS
EDINBURG, TX
MAKE, MODEL FOR CAB CHASSIS
MAKE & MODEL FOR CLEANING
UNIT
AUSTIN TRUCK
& EQUIPMENT
AUSTIN , TX
BUYBOARD
GRANDE
TRUCK
CENTER
FRIGHTLINER
OF AUSTIN
TX
AUSTIN, TX
BUYBOARD
FREIGHTLINER FREIGHTLINER
DOGGETT
OF AUSTIN
OF AUSTIN
FREIGHTLINER
OF SOUTH
AUSTIN TRUCK
TRUCK &
TEXAS LLC
& EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT
PHARR, TX
AUSTIN , TX
AUSTIN , TX
BUYBOARD
BUYBOARD
TX
TRUCK &
EQUIPMENT
AUSTIN , TX
BUYBOARD
2017 WESTERN
STAR 4700SF
2017 FRIGHTLINER
114SD
2017 FREIGHTLINER
114SD
2017 VACALL/AJV1015
2016 VACTOR 211018
2016 VACTOR 211018 COMBINATION
2016 HI-VAC B10
2016 VACTOR 2110
2016 SEWER
EQUIPMENT OF
AMERICA 900ECO
$307,995.00
$311,826.00
$317,704.00
$323,354.00
$320,082.00
$338,741.39
$352,822.00
$352,496.00
$2,990.00
$2,698.00
$7,000.00
$4,200.00
$6,934.00
$2,400.00
$2,698.00
$6,934.00
$6,488.00
$6,488.00
$2,990.00
NO BID
90-120 DAYS
NOT
ACKNOWLEDGED
HARDCOPY OF BID SUBMITTED
YES
ELECTRONIC BID SUBMITTED
YES
2017
FREIGHTLINER
114SD
2016
2016 SEWER EQUIP
2016 SEWER
SUPERPRODUCTS
CO OF AMERICA
EQUIPMENT OF
CAMEL 1200
900ECO
AMERICA 900ECO
$2,900.00
$2,900.00
$4,000.00
$2,900.00
$6,448.00
INCLUDED IN
BASE BID
$2,990.00
$2,990.00
NO BID
$2,990.00
NO BID
$1,900.00
$316,875.00
$320,414.00
$328,704.00
NOT SPECIFIED NOT SPECIFIED NOT SPECIFIED
2017 WESTERN
STAR 4700SF
FREIGHTLINER
OF AUSTIN
2017 114SD
FREIGHTLINER
$310,000.00
2017
2017 FREIGHTLINER
FREIGHTLLINER OF
114SD
AUSTIN
GRANDE
TRUCK
CENTER
2017
FREIGHTLINER/108SD
COMPLETE UNIT (CAB CHASSIS
W/CM TRUCK MOUNTED
COMBINATION SEWER AND CATCH
$310,000.00
BASIN CLEANING UNIT INSTALLED)
ALTERNATE ITEM NO. 1: OPTIONAL
EQUIPMENT: EXTENDED
WARRANTY: Two (2) year, 2000 hour
on engine and drive train
INCLUDED IN BASE
components. Extended warranty to
BID
commence once standard warranty
EQUIPMENT: HYDRO-EXCAVATION
PACKAGE: Retractable HYDROEXCAVATION PACKAGE: Retractable
reel with 50 foot hose, handgun and
plumbing. Variable flow range of 0-22 INCLUDED IN BASE
BID
GPM @ 2500 PSI.
EXTENDED WARRANTY: ONE (1)
YEAR ON TRUCK MOUNTED
COMBINATION SEWER CATCH
BASIN CLEANING UNIT. EXTENDED INCLUDED IN BASE
BID
WARRANTY TO COMMENCE
TOTAL
DELIVERY
FREIGHTLINER
OF AUSTIN
$333,444.00
$333,464.00
$343,041.39
150-240DAYS
ARO
NOT
SPECIFIED
NOT
SPECIFIED
$364,998.00 $365,918.00
NOT
SPECIFIED
NOT
SPECIFIED
1,2,3
YES
YES
1,2,3
YES
NO
1,2,3
YES
NO
1,2,3
YES
YES
1,2,3
YES
NO
ADDENDUMS
1,2,3
YES
NO
1,2,3
YES
YES
1,2,3
YES
YES
H:\EXCEL\Bid Tabs\BT PURCHASES\BTP10-46 ONE (1) 2016 CAB & CHASSIS WITH CM TRUCK MOUNTED COMBINATION SEWER AND CATCH BASIN CLEANING UNIT
Created on 2/17/2016 12:07 PM
AGENDA ITEM
2.e.
DATE SUBMITTED
MEETING DATE
02/17/2016
02/23/2016
1. Agenda Item: Consideration and Approval of Proposed Increase to Liquid
Waste Disposal Fees
2. Party Making Request: Oscar J. Hinojosa, Asst. Director of Wastewater
Systems
3. Nature of Request: Consideration and Approval of Proposed Increase to Liquid
Waste Disposal Fees.
4. Budgeted:
Bid Amount:
Under Budget:
Budgeted Amount:
Over Budget:
Amount Remaining:
5. Reimbursement:
6. Routing:
Shelton, Edith
7. Staff's Recommendation: Approval as presented.
AGENDA ITEM
3.a.
DATE SUBMITTED
MEETING DATE
02/16/2016
02/23/2016
1. Agenda Item: Consideration and Approval of the North McAllen Re-use
Facilities and Transmission-Line Project - Resolution for TWDB/CWSRF Loan
Application
3. Nature of Request: Approval of Submission of an application requesting
financial assistance from the Texas Water Development Board Clean Water
State Revolving Fund for planning, acquisition and design activities for a
transmission sewer trunk line designating an authorized representative to act
on behalf of the City of McAllen and McAllen Public Utility and authorizing the
authorized representative to carry out the implementation of this product.
4. Budgeted:
Bid Amount:
Under Budget:
Budgeted Amount:
Over Budget:
Amount Remaining:
5. Reimbursement:
6. Routing:
Gonzalez, Carlos
7. Staff's Recommendation: Approval of resolution as presented.
Memo
TO:
Roel Rodriguez, P.E., City Manager
FROM:
DATE:
February 15, 2016
SUBJECT:
North McAllen Reuse Facilities and Transmission line Project
– Resolution for TWDB/CWSRF Loan Application
MPU Staff Is requesting formal consideration and approval of a Resolution authorizing
the submittal of a Texas Water Development Board – Clean Water State Revolving
Fund (CWSRF) Funding Application for the North McAllen Reuse Facilities and
Transmission Line Project.
The project consists of facility improvements at the North McAllen Wastewater
Treatment Plant necessary to produce Type I Quality Reuse Water as well as a
conveyance system consisting of a transmission line necessary to deliver reuse water to
the Tres Lagos Development as well as to the City of McAllen’s Youth Baseball
Complex Park located at Auburn Road and 29th Street.
If additional information is required, please advise.
AGENDA ITEM
4.a.
DATE SUBMITTED
MEETING DATE
02/17/2016
02/23/2016
1. Agenda Item: Discussion and Approval of RSBR FM 681 Subdivision
3. Nature of Request: Approval of subdivision as conditions set forth.
4. Budgeted:
Bid Amount:
Under Budget:
Budgeted Amount:
Over Budget:
Amount Remaining:
6. Routing:
Gonzalez, Carlos
7. Staff's Recommendation: Approval of subdivision as conditions set forth.
RSBR FM 681
MOO
²
MILE 9 1/2
MOOREFIELD ROAD (F.M. 681)
INSPIRATION ROAD
1 inch = 500 feet
BUENA VIDA ST.
MI SUENO
Legend
MILE 9
MILE 9
AGENDA ITEM
4.b.
DATE SUBMITTED
MEETING DATE
02/17/2016
02/23/2016
1. Agenda Item: Discussion and Possible Action for Cost Participation to
the Home 2 Suites Hotel Water Improvements
3. Nature of Request: Discussion and Possible Action for Cost Participation to
the Home 2 Suites Hotel Water Improvements as conditions set forth.
4. Budgeted:
Bid Amount:
Under Budget:
Budgeted Amount:
Over Budget:
Amount Remaining:
6. Routing:
Gonzalez, Carlos
7. Staff's Recommendation:
Memo
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
February 16, 2016
SUBJECT:
Home 2 Suites – Consideration and Participation of Waterline
Improvements
Home 2 Suites Hotel is located on Lot 9 of the McAllen Convention Center Subdivision, located
on the northeast corner of Ware Road and Galveston Avenue. The hotel was approved by Utility
Engineering with conditions, through the building permit process on January 8, 2016. The
required public water improvements consists of the extension of an 8” waterline connecting to an
existing 12” line located on the west side of Ware Road to an existing 12” waterline located within
the driveway parking lot the Convention Center. The developer has submitted a cost estimate
totaling in the amount of $60,000.00 for all the waterline. The developer is formally requesting
consideration of cost participation of $30,000.00 for the offsite waterline component.
I’ll be available for further discussion/questions at the MPUB meeting.
HOME 2 SUITES
²
?
!
?
!
ERIE
12"
¬!?
«
!
?
?
!
ERIE
¬
«
6"!
?
1 inch = 100 feet
CONNECT TO EXISTING 12" WATERLINE
«
8"
12"
!!
?
?
12"!
?
6"
8"
WARE
12"
12"
¬6"!?!?
«
¬
«
CONNECT TO EXISTING 12" WATERLINE
12"
¬6"!?
«
GALVESTON
Legend
WARE
Waterline
Proposed Waterline
Proposed Participation WL
?
!
!
?
?
!
?
!
¬
«
Fire Hydrant
«
Proposed Fire Hydrant
AGENDA ITEM
5.a.
DATE SUBMITTED
MEETING DATE
02/15/2016
02/23/2016
1. Agenda Item: Approval of amending City Ordinance No. 2006-13 of the City of
McAllen, Chapter 2 Article IV Division 6, Section 2-261 and Section 2-262,
Internal Audit Charter and Policy Manual, and Internal Audit Intra-Office Fraud
Reporting and Investigation Policy.
2. Party Making Request: Abraham Suarez, CFE CRMA, Internal City Auditor
3. Nature of Request: Consider ordinance amending Chapter 2 Article IV Division
6 Section 2-261 and Section 2-262, revision to internal audit charter and policy
manual, and internal audit intra-office fraud reporting and investigation policy.
4. Budgeted:
Bid Amount:
Under Budget:
Budgeted Amount:
Over Budget:
Amount Remaining:
5. Reimbursement:
6. Routing:
Flatau, Nyla
Suarez, Abraham
7. Staff's Recommendation: Consider ordinance amending Chapter 2 Article IV
Division 6 Section 2-261 and Section 2-262, revision to internal audit charter
and policy manual, and internal audit intra-office fraud reporting and
investigation policy.
10. Director of Finance for Utilities: N/A - MDC
AGENDA ITEM
5.b.
DATE SUBMITTED
MEETING DATE
02/15/2016
02/23/2016
1.
Agenda Item: Presentation by BBS - January Water Brief
2.
Party Making Request: Marco A. Vega, P.E., General Manager
3.
Nature of Request: Item for Board information only.
4.
Budgeted:
Bid Amount:
Under Budget:
5.
Reimbursement:
6.
Routing:
Flatau, Nyla
Budgeted Amount:
Over Budget:
Amount Remaining:
7.
Staff's Recommendation: Item for Board information only.
8.
City Attorney: N/A - KDP
9.
MPU General Manager: NA - MAV
January 2016
Via Electronic Mail
Marco A Vega, P.E.
General Manager
McAllen Public Utility
1300 Houston Avenue
McAllen, Texas 78501
Re:
January 2016 Water Brief
Please allow the following information to serve as a resource regarding some of the water issues
trending in Texas. It is not a comprehensive summary. Its purpose is to provide information that
may be of interest to water stakeholders in our region at this time. In addition, the information
provided is only basic information regarding the subject matter herein. Additional information
regarding any of the subject matters discussed below is available upon request. This is a work
product of Beatty Bangle Strama PC and is intended for the sole use of the firm’s clients. Before
taking any action in reliance on the information included herein, we ask that you personally
consult with an attorney from our firm.
Clean Water Rule Litigation
The Natural Resources Defense Council (“NRDC”), Michigan Farm Bureau and National
Wildlife Federation (“NWF”) were denied by an Ohio federal judge from intervening in
litigation over the changes proposed by the EPA to the Clean Water Act. The basis for the
judge’s ruling was that the petitioners’ interests are already clearly represented by the parties
currently involved in the case. “Although the farm bureau and the environmental groups have
argued that they might present arguments different from those that the existing parties would
present, neither of the proposed interveners has identified a distinct argument that might
advance,” the judge said. “Given that the farm bureau and the environmental groups share
nearly identical interests, and arguments, with the existing parties, permitting those groups to
intervene would unnecessarily complicate this case and delay the proceedings.”
It its effort to intervene, the farm bureau argued that its interests cannot be adequately protected
by any other governmental party to the litigation because “the other parties are not primarily
concerned with the rule’s impact on the farming industry within Michigan.”1
1
Information derived from Law360 Article “Farm Group And Enviros Sidelined In Clean Water Rule Suit”
Marco Vega
January 2016
Page 2
The NWF and the NRDC, who argue that the rule doesn’t go far enough in identifying water to
be protected under the CWA, argued that they should be permitted to intervene because they may
have different positions than the federal government and may not approve of a future settlement
between the current parties.
This decision limits the number of individual parties who will be allowed to directly participate
in the lawsuit, which will set a precedent for similar lawsuits being litigated in other federal court
jurisdictions.
House Natural Resources Interim Hearing
The House Committee on Natural Resources held an interim hearing to discuss the future of
water marketing in Texas. Water marketing refers to the sale and movement of water from one
area to another. Historically, a proposal for a project to move water from one area for use in
another has been met with adamant opposition from the stakeholders in the area of the waters’
origin. These stakeholders have argued that “their” water must be protected and conserved for
future growth. Over time however, many of these rural areas that are rich in water have either
experienced no growth or a loss of their population. Their argument that water should not be
moved out of their area because of a need to conserve for the future is weaken with the trend in
population loss. In addition, groundwater is considered a property right in Texas, which has
recently been strength by various court cases. Water marketing advocates argue that this
property right should allow the owner to sell and market this right as they so chose. Pumping
can be limited by groundwater conservation districts, however this limitation cannot be
discriminatory against landowners seeking permits to pump water for use outside the
groundwater conservation district boundaries.
The committee is tasked with studying the viability of establishing a water grid in Texas similar
to our electrical grind infrastructure. A bill to that would have created a study on this issue failed
to pass the 84th legislative session. The fight over these type of proposals typically pits rural
lawmakers against urban lawmakers. The motivation behind these proposal centers on
lawmakers concern with accommodating the very rapidly growing population in Texas’ urban
areas.
It was stated at the committee that the ultimate goal should be to strike a balance between
maintaining enough water in the area of origin for environmental conservation and growth, and
developing a plan to provide opportunities to market this resource to other parts of the state that
are booming with population and desperately need water. The committee will spend the period
before next legislative session looking at opportunities for incentives from areas receiving water
to areas providing water that could benefit each area and the state as a whole.2
2
Information derived from Austin American Statesman article “With water issues on tap, House committee looks at statewide
solutions”
Marco Vega
January 2016
Page 3
Lasting Effects from Texas Drought
In a Business Wire article, Fitch Ratings, the international bond ratings agency, states that
despite the end of the severe drought in Texas, the state’s water and sewer utilities will continue
to see an impact. “The lessons and momentum that the dry spell left on political leaders, water
suppliers and consumers will have lasting effects on the sector,” says Gabriela Gutierrez,
Director. “While Texas typically experiences dry spells, the most recent drought stretched for
four long years and heightened the urgency to ensure adequate water supplies are available to
sustain a prosperous economy.” As of January 2016, 95% of Texas was drought-free, compared
with just 34% the year prior; reservoirs are now 85% full, up from 63% in early 2015.
Recent wet weather from El Nino combined with continued focus on conservation is likely to
curb water consumption. As a result, water suppliers will see a decline in revenues. It is highly
likely that suppliers will need to raise prices in order to meet their current financial demands
while at the same time planning and financing infrastructure projects that are needed to keep
pace with growth. The lost in revenues impacts the suppliers bond ratings and their ability to
financing need infrastructure projects. In addition, each time suppliers propose to raise rates they
are met with adamant opposition from rate payers resulting in a hesitancy to raise rates. Fitch is
concerned that surplus revenues have not been sufficient enough to maintain existing assets.
Given the added challenge of updating aging infrastructure, utilities will be increasingly reliant
on borrowable resources for funding. These issues highlight the need for utilities to establish
master plans and integrate these plans into the State Water Plan with the Texas Water
Development Board so that policy makers and appropriates have a clear picture of Texas’ water
needs.3
TCEQ Graywater
“House Bill (HB) 1902, 84th Texas Legislature (201), amended Texas Health and Safety Code
(THSC) Chapters 341 and 366 and Texas Water Code (TWC) Chapter 26 in relation to the use of
graywater.
The bill requires the TCEQ to develop standards to allow the re-use of graywater for toilet and
urinal flushing. The bill also creates a new regulatory classification for “alternative onsite
water” which is defined as “rainwater, air-conditioning condensate, foundation drain water,
storm water, cooling tower blowdown, swimming pool backwash and drain water, reverse
osmosis reject water, or any other sources of water considered appropriate by the Commission.”
The bill directs the TCEQ to develop similar standards for the re-use of this new source of water
similar to graywater.
3
Information acquired from Business Wire article “Fitch: Texas Drought Leaves a Lasting Impact on Water/Sewer Utilities”
Marco Vega
January 2016
Page 4
The TCEQ has drafted language that amends 30 TAC Chapters 210 and 285 to implement HB
1902. The draft rules are available for informal stakeholder review and comment. The TCEQ
will not provide a response to the informal comments; however the comments will be used to
finalize the draft rules.
The draft rule language can be found at:
www.tceq.texas.gov/permitting/wastewater/graywater/. Comments will be accepted through
Feb. 29, 2016, and may be submitted by e-mail to: [email protected].”4
TCEQ Rulemaking Spill Reporting
“On Jan 20, 2016, TCEQ commissioners approved publication of rulemaking implementing
Senate Bill (SB) 912, 84th Legislature, related to volume-based exemptions from reporting
requirements for certain accidental discharges or spills from wastewater treatment facilities or
collections systems.”5 “The proposed rulemaking will allow any single, accidental discharge or
spill of treated or untreated domestic wastewater that occurs at a wastewater treatment or
collection system owned or operated by a local government to be reported to the TCEQ monthly,
as a summary of spills, provided the following conditions are met:
•
•
•
•
•
•
The spill volume is 1,000 gallons or less;
It is not associated with another accidental discharge or spill;
It is controlled or removed before entering water in the state;
It does not adversely affect a public or private source of drinking water;
It will not endanger human health or safety or the environment; and
It is not otherwise subject to local regulatory control and reporting requirements
Additionally, the proposed rules require the owner or operator of the facility or collection system
to use one of three standard methods in the proposed rule when calculating the volume of a
discharge or spill. The proposed rules will also implement SB 912 by requiring the TCEQ to
consider the compliance history of the individual and to establish procedures for formatting and
submission of the monthly summary (including location, volume, and content of each accidental
discharge or spill that occurred during the preceding month).”6 To obtain a copy of the proposed
rule, visit the TCEQ website at: https://www.tceq.texas.gov/rules/prop.html. For more
information on providing comments to the TCEQ, visit their website at:
https://www.tceq.texas.gov/about/comments.html.
4
Information acquired from TCEQ The Advocate publication article “TCEQ Seeking Stakeholder Input for Graywater
Rulemaking”
5
Information acquired from TCEQ The Advocate publication article “TCEQ Proposes New Rules for Accidental Discharges or
Spills at Wastewater Treatment or Collection Systems”
6
i.e.
Marco Vega
January 2016
Page 5
Miscellaneous
Congressman Vela will host a RESTORE Act event on Thursday, Feb 18, 2016, from 1:30pm to
4:00pm that will include an application workshop. This event will be held at the Hilton Garden
Inn, located at 7010 Padre Island in South Padre Island, Texas. Applications for RESTORE
Direct Component (Bucket 1) grants must be submitted to http://www.restorethetexascoast.org/
no later than 5:00pm on Friday, April 15, 2016.
http://www.law360.com/environmental/articles/756465?nl_pk=f062d438-c54c-4110-b81153ce77d55810&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=environmental
article about a ex public water systems operator getting sentenced to 3 years prison for falsifying
testing results.
http://apps.texastribune.org/reservoirs/ this is a link to an interactive website that provides up to
date information on reservoir levels in Texas.
Attached please find “Texas Water Update” policy brief published by Central Texas Water
Coalition.
http://www.law360.com/environmental/articles/753894?nl_pk=f062d438-c54c-4110-b81153ce77d55810&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=environmental
link to an article about the Flint, Michigan water contamination case.
https://journals.tdl.org/twj/index.php/twj/article/view/7019 great article about how different
states managed water during the drought.
Attached please find the TCEQ’s latest water delivery report.
ISSUE 5 | FEBRUARY 2016
TEXAS WATER UPDATE
The manner in which leaders, communities, citizens and businesses
responded to recent drought conditions was not only an important
lesson in our state’s ability to adapt, but it served as a powerful
P OLI CY BR I EF
demonstration of how we can change our behavior as times require.
In response to dwindling water supplies, many municipalities implemented water conservation measures
to preserve drinking water. Some stepped up their efforts for water reuse. And numerous communities
adjusted their pricing to encourage conservation and prudent use.
Lower lake levels not only affected water
supplies, but they also impacted local
economies. In many regions, declining
water levels forced businesses to close. Jobs
were lost. Tax bases used to support local
government services were diminished, and some
communities faced challenges in responding to
fires and other emergencies.
At one point during 2015,
the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (TCEQ)
listed 59 of the state’s public
water systems as at risk of
Through it all, the most significant takeaway is
the compelling reinforcement that management
running out of water within
and usage of our state’s water resources
180 days or less.
must evolve in order to meet the future
needs of the state’s growing population and
expanding economy. We can’t just talk about
conservation; there must be smarter and more efficient use of water by all. The price that everybody pays
for water must encourage conservation and reflect the value of this precious commodity. Use of modern
technologies and irrigation methods must become the norm for those who use mass quantities of water in
their operations. And regulators must weigh potential economic impacts as they make water management
decisions that affect communities, economies and public health.
DROUGHT CONDITIONS CAN RETURN
Even when we are blessed with rain, we must remember that even the heaviest downpours could be a mere
brief respite in an ongoing multiyear drought. We know this can happen because it happened during the
Drought of Record in the 1940s and 1950s. Rain in 1951 and 1952 replenished reservoirs temporarily, but
the drought continued for another five years. We must learn from our history that even a rainy year doesn’t
mean a drought is over.
www.CentralTexasWaterCoalition.org
An educational resource provided by the Central Texas Water Coalition.
Texas Percent Area (%)
0 percent of the state in drought 39 percent of the time.
Since 2000 at least some part of the state was in drought conditions 93 percent of the time.
100
80
60
40
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
D0 (Abnormally Dry)
04
20
05
20
06
20
D1 (Moderate Drought)
07
20
08
20
09
20
D2 (Severe Drought)
10
20
11
20
12
20
D3 (Extreme Drought)
13
20
14
20
15
20
D4 (Exceptional Drought)
Source: Texas Water Development Board
THE CENTRAL TEXAS EXPERIENCE
For a quick case study on ways to better manage the state’s precious water supplies, one need only look to the
experience of Central Texans who rely on the Highland Lakes to provide water to the more than 1 million residents
Stay Connected:
www.twdb.texas.gov
who live in the region.
Tulsi Oberbeck, Governmental Relations | [email protected] | 512.463.4864
Kimberly
Leggett, Media Relations | [email protected] | 512.463.5129
A DIFFERENT
DECISION
In 2011, as the drought’s grip on the region tightened, nearly half of the available water supply in Lake Travis was
released for use in flooding rice fields in several South Texas counties. The water released for approximately 200
rice farmers was enough to supply Los Angeles, a city of 3.8 million people, for a year. In the five years since the
mass release, Lakes Buchanan and Travis experienced the three lowest annual water inflow totals ever recorded for
the lakes. The release of half of the lake’s water supply was devastating to the region and threatened the primary
water supply for the City of Austin.
In 2011, the water provided to
200 RICE FARMERS
was enough to supply Los Angeles for a year.
Source: City of Los Angeles, CA
This didn’t have to happen. The long-lasting impact of the 2011 water release serves as a powerful lesson on water
management, and one that we must learn from, not repeat. Recognizing the serious negative impacts of the 2011
water release, the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
(TCEQ) have changed the rules for such releases. The TCEQ approved a new LCRA water management plan in
early November 2015. The two agencies’ actions were an important step toward ensuring the region’s drinking
water supplies are better protected.
MUNICIPAL AND BUSINESS USERS
PAY 15 TIMES MORE FOR
WATER THAN RICE FARMERS
$9.25
$145.00
No incentive
to conserve
EQUITABLE PRICING
We know pricing motivates behavior. We use cheap
things freely and sometimes even waste them. For more
expensive things, we purchase only what we need and try
to stretch them so they last. Pricing of water follows this
principle of human nature. Water pricing should encourage
conservation of valuable water resources and responsible
use by all. In Central Texas, there is a clear link between the
current trend to better manage water usage in residential
settings and the prices those users pay. Conversely, the lack
of modern technology in the rice-growing sector shows
us that the outdated price of $9.25 per acre-foot (325,851
gallons), compared to $145 paid by municipal users in the
region, provides no incentive to rice farmers to conserve and
make changes. Fair pricing for all users must be part of the
state’s water management formula, not just because it is the
right thing to do, but, more importantly, because it will drive
much-needed innovation, leading to conservation.
Although more abundant rainfall and accessible
groundwater supplies exist in the rice-growing region, the
Agricultural Users
Firm Water Users
underpriced water from the Highland Lakes is a much
(Rice Farmers)
more appealing purchase. Additionally, the highly inefficient
Source: LCRA
method of transporting the water for hundreds of miles
down the Colorado River and distributing it through miles of unlined irrigation canals results in significant losses of water
and revenue to the water supplier and the entire river basin. A 2012 report by the Lower Colorado River Authority estimated
that of the water released for rice farming in 2011, the amount lost to evaporation, seepage or changed conditions that
eliminated the need for the water was more than 21 billion gallons.2 Not only will market-based pricing encourage greater
conservation, but the use of supplies other than the Highland Lakes will eliminate the excessive and inefficient waste that
results from the water traveling down the Colorado River to its destination.
Price per acre-foot for water
Price per acre-foot for water
CONSIDERING ECONOMIC IMPACT
If the range of economic consequences had been considered, it
is possible that decisions would not have been made that resulted
The LCRA estimates that
in sending almost half of Lake Travis downstream to flood rice
of the water released
fields in 2011. Receding shorelines, closed businesses, “For Sale”
signs, lost jobs, declining tax revenues and the jeopardizing
for rice farming in 2011,
of a region’s primary drinking water supply were all part of
21 billion gallons was lost
the aftermath of action taken under a management plan that
to evaporation, seepage
did not fully weigh the potential consequences. While the exact
economic impact to the region might have been difficult to forecast,
or changed conditions
consideration of the best and worst-case scenarios could have led
that eliminated the need
to a different result. Many find it hard to believe that the State
of Texas does not consider evidence related to economic impact
for the water.
when making decisions regarding the allocation and management
of surface water, a resource so critical to the state’s economic
viability and its public health and safety. Groups who best understand this critical dynamic are continuing work they began in
2015 to advocate for the inclusion of economic impact as a factor to be considered in water management decisions.
REDUCING USE WITH IMPROVED IRRIGATION METHODS
In 2011, the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) reported that agricultural irrigation accounted for
approximately 56 percent of the state’s total water use. 3 According to the TWDB, rice farming use in five South
Texas counties alone comprised more than 276 billion gallons.4
Texas has one of the country’s fastest-growing populations and an ever-expanding state economy. Pair that with
dwindling, less-reliable water supplies, and it is becoming increasingly necessary to ensure that the most efficient
methods of irrigation are used, especially when innovation can significantly reduce water waste. Given the amount
of water used in rice farming with traditional flooding methods, opportunities exist to develop and implement new
best practices that will help ensure the most efficient use of a limited natural resource.
Water used for rice farming
in five counties in 2011 was
enough to supply the City
A 2001 study funded by the Lower Colorado
River Authority in conjunction with the
Texas Department of Agriculture and Netafim
USA showed that subsurface drip irrigation
methods reduced water use by approximately
50 percent over traditional flood irrigation.
of Austin for seven years.
Other improvements in water management
have also shown that techniques such as surge
irrigation and narrow-border flood irrigation use
substantially less water than flood irrigation
while maintaining the quality of yields. In fact, these techniques resulted in an astounding 56 percent increase in income
for cotton farmers in South Texas.6 Alternate wetting and drying (AWD) has also been used successfully in regions around
the world. SRI, or system of rice intensification, not only reduces water use by almost half, but also has been shown to
increase yields by more than 40 percent and farmer income by as much as 60 percent.7
While some of these innovations may not be applicable for broad agricultural use, they do demonstrate the ability to change
practices as times require. Even with its record-breaking population growth, Austin has reduced per capita consumption by 22
percent from 2007-2013.8 But cities aren’t the only ones reducing water usage. Farmers around the world are demonstrating they
can adapt to using less water with alternative irrigation methods, and in some instances are improving their yields by doing so.
CHANGING TIMES, CHANGING WAYS
Even though change can be difficult, families, cities and businesses have demonstrated how they can reduce use and increase
efficiency to respond to a less predictable water supply. Their actions were not just out of concern that we’re running out of
water, but to adapt to changing times as they arise so that we don’t. The state’s evolving drought conditions and the increasingly
unpredictable weather patterns have reinforced the need to think differently when it comes to managing our water supply.
While we don’t control how much water falls from the sky, we are able to promote water management that recognizes
the true value of this precious resource.
Sources
1
http://www.waterdatafortexas.org/reservoirs/basin/colorado;
2
http://www.lcra.org/water/water-supply/Documents/water_use_summary_2011.pdf;
3
http://texasstatewaterplan.org/#/demands/2010/state;
4
http://www2.twdb.texas.gov/ReportServerExt/Pages/ReportViewer.aspx?%2fWU%2fIrrigation_Crop_Water_Use&rs:Command=Render;
5
http://www2.twdb.texas.gov/ReportServerExt/Pages/ReportViewer.aspx?%2fWU%2fSumFinal_WUG_Entity_Detail_2013&rs:Command=Render;
6
http://www.twdb.texas.gov/conservation/agriculture/demonstration/doc/AWE_AnnualReport2013.pdf;
7
http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/elist/eListRead/system_of_rice_intensification_brings_hope_to_global_rice_production/;
8
City of Austin
Good afternoon,
This report is for the week ending 1/23/2016.


As of the date of this report, Mexico has delivered 211,700 AF since
October 25, 2015.*
The previous cycle ended with a debt of 263,250 AF.
*Data is preliminary and subject to IBWC revision.
On January 23, 2016, the U.S. combined ownership at Amistad/Falcon stood at
66.61% of normal conservation capacity, impounding 2,259,449 acre-feet, up
from 48.69% (1,651,416 AF) of normal conservation a year ago at this time.
The Mexican Reservoirs report shows, as a whole, a total of 69.20% average
capacity. All Mexican Reservoirs are below 100% capacity at this time.
As of 1/23/16:
The United States has 1,366,857 AF in Amistad and 892,592 AF in Falcon.
Mexico has 565,065 AF in Amistad and 651,000 AF in Falcon.
The Amistad Reservoir is currently at:
1092.14 ft -24.86 with a release of 20.0 cms / 706 cfs
Falcon Reservoir is currently at:
285.68
ft -15.52 with a release of 25.0 cms / 882 cfs
AGENDA ITEM
6.a.
DATE SUBMITTED
MEETING DATE
02/15/2016
02/23/2016
1.
Agenda Item: Presentation by BBS
2.
Party Making Request: Marco A. Vega, P.E., General Manager
3.
Nature of Request:
4.
Budgeted:
Bid Amount:
Under Budget:
5.
Reimbursement:
6.
Routing:
Flatau, Nyla
Budgeted Amount:
Over Budget:
Amount Remaining:
7.
Staff's Recommendation: Information only.
8.
City Attorney: N/A - KDP
9.
MPU General Manager: N/A - MAV
November/December 2015
Via Electronic Mail
Marco A Vega, P.E.
General Manager
McAllen Public Utility
1300 Houston Avenue
McAllen, Texas 78501
Re:
November/December 2015 Water Brief
Please allow the following information to serve as a resource regarding some of the water issues
trending in Texas. It is not a comprehensive summary. Its purpose is to provide information that
may be of interest to water stakeholders in our region at this time. In addition, the information
provided is only basic information regarding the subject matter herein. Additional information
regarding any of the subject matters discussed below is available upon request. This is a work
product of Beatty Bangle Strama PC and is intended for the sole use of the firm’s clients. Before
taking any action in reliance on the information included herein, we ask that you personally
consult with an attorney from our firm.
Storm Water Problems
Heavy rains in November caused 630,000 gallons of raw sewage to overflow across the Dallas
metropolitan area. Increased urban development has been identified as one of the leading
contributors to Texas’ storm water control problems. As raw land is developed, less impervious
cover exists for the natural management and drainage of storm water creating a higher
dependency on municipal sewer and storm water drainage systems. Similar incidents occurred in
Houston and Austin where 2 million and 650,000 gallons of raw sewage poured onto urban
streets respectively. Runoff water carries bacteria, pathogens, litter and heavy metals from
construction debris into our natural water bodies creating health hazards and restrictions for
recreational use. These health problems can lead to waterborne illnesses like stomach flu, skin
rashes and other serious health issues. In 2012 the American Society of Civil Engineers assigned
Texas a grade of “D” for flood control and drainage infrastructure. Undeveloped raw land,
which serves as a natural means of drainage, is being replaced with hard surfaces, rooftops,
parking lots, and highways. As water runs across these surfaces its picks up animal waste,
pesticides, motor oil and trash.
As this issue becomes more prevalent, the larger urban communities in Texas are taking
preventive measures and encouraging smarter infrastructure including porous pavement, green
Marco Vega
Page 2
roofs, parks, roadside planting and rain barrels. Other areas in the country like the City of Seattle
are offering rebates for homes and businesses to harvest rainwater. Technologies like green
streets use vegetation and other engineering strategies to allow storm water to soak into soil.
Simple measures like the installation of devices to capture trash as water passes through storm
drains can greatly reduce the contaminants entering our waterways in Texas.
As more and more agricultural land is developed in South Texas, the Valley will begin to
experience similar storm water problems affecting bigger urban areas. Encouraging these
policies and implementing these technologies now can help us from experiencing greater
problems in the future. In addition, there is an opportunity to capture storm water for treatment
and use through strategies like aquifer storage and recovery (hereinafter “ASR”).
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Rule Making HB 655
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (hereinafter “TCEQ”) will hold a public
hearing on 1/22/2016 at it’s central office in Austin to discuss proposed rules for the
implementation of HB 655 from the 84th regular legislative session pertaining to ASR activities.
The public can make comments on the proposed rules through 2/08/2016.1 ASR is the strategy
of injecting water into an aquifer for storage and later use. One of the highlights of this rule
making is an amendment to the existing permitting authorization process. This change will
combine the pilot project and final authorization process into a single streamlined authorization.
In addition, this rulemaking with prohibit the TCEQ from enforcing groundwater quality
protection standards for the injected water if that water’s standards are more stringent than
applicable federal standards. The use of this strategy is becoming more viable as the technology
continues to improve and become more cost efficient. In addition, this strategy continues to
become more attractive as we experience greater difficulty developing surface land for reservoir
use. South Texas could greatly benefit from this technology by blending injected water into
brackish reservoirs lowering the salinity levels in those reservoirs making that water more cost
efficient to produce.
Indictments Continue for Falsifying Records
A Pennsylvania company and its owners were indicted in December for conspiring to violate the
Clean Water Act by ordering workers to discard samples from wastewater treatment facilities
that they believed would violate pollutant limits. The indictments were issued by the United
States Attorney Generals Office in Pennsylvania. The defendants in this case are facing possible
fines and imprisonment. Federal charges typically are considered to be more punitive and
serious in nature. These indictments by a federal agency signify how serious a stance the federal
government is taking against the falsification of water quality testing records. These indictments
are similar to the charges filed against the operators of the system near Laredo, Texas. This
should put operators on notice of the importance of how accurate reports should be.
1
http://www1.tceq.texas.gov/rules/ecomments/ link to submit comments online.
Marco Vega
Page 3
TCEQ Drought Lawsuit
The TCEQ petitioned the Supreme Court of Texas for review after a 13th Court of Appeals held
that the TCEQ could not issue exemptions for cities and power generators from droughttriggered water restrictions and circumvent senior water rights holders use. The 13th Court of
Appeals specifically held that the TCEQ cannot raise public health and safety concerns to issue
water restriction exemptions to junior rights holders when those rights holders granted seniority
under the priority doctrine asserted their rights. At the hearing held by the Supreme Court, the
Farm Bureau and a handful of other farmers told the Court that the TCEQ overstepped its
authority and disregarded the priority doctrine governing water rights when it issued the
exemptions to junior right holders at the expense of senior right holders. The TCEQ argues that
if the ruling stands then there will be no statewide mechanism for providing temporary drought
relief. This scenario typically is manifested in times of drought when there is not enough water
to meet the demand. The underlying question before the Court is whether Texas surface water
rights will be governed by the system of law established by the legislature or whether the state
agency charged with administration of water may grant itself discretion to manage those rights in
the way it prefers. This case stems for a call on priority rights by Dow Chemical in 2012 in the
midst of extreme drought and water storage in Texas. The TCEQ argued to the Court that it had
the authority to do this because the legislature gave the agency power to allocate water in times
of drought emergency in a way that respects senior rights holders under the priority doctrine but
doesn’t put health and safety at risk. The case is pending a ruling by the Court.2
Miscellaneous
Governor Abbot appointed a new commissioner to the TCEQ in November 2015. Jon Niermann,
former chief of the Environmental Protection Division at the Texas Attorney General’s Office,
was appointed to fill the vacant spot on the commission.
http://apps.texastribune.org/undrinkable/ this is a link to a great article about the continued
troubles some border communities face regarding access to quality drinking water.
http://www.texastribune.org/plus/water/vol-3/no-26/companies-dispute-over-san-antoniopipeline-projec/?mc_cid=44d5bc8397&mc_eid=d105dfb8b9 this link provides an update to the
ongoing problems San Antonio is experiencing with it’s 3 billion dollar proposed water pipeline.
http://apps.texastribune.org/reservoirs/ link to an interactive website that provides up to date
information on reservoir levels in Texas.
2
Information provided by Law360 article “Texas Farmers Ask High Court To Leave Water Ruling Intact”
Marco Vega
Page 4
Attached please find a copy of a presentation made by the TWDB at a public workshop recently
held in Weslaco. The workshop provided attendees with the latest information regarding
financial assistance programs administered by the agency.
The American Water Works Association will be hosting its’ 2016 Membrane Technology
Conference and Exposition in San Antonio on February 1-5. You can learn more about the
conference and register at this website http://www.amtaorg.com/awwa/mtc16reg.
Attached please find the TCEQ’s latest water delivery report.
Good afternoon,
This report is for the week ending 12/26/2015.



The current cycle began on October 25, 2015.
As of the date of this report, Mexico has delivered 184,132 AF in the first
year of the current cycle.*
The previous cycle ended with a debt of 263,250 AF.
*Data is preliminary and subject to IBWC revision.
On December 26, 2015, the U.S. combined ownership at Amistad/Falcon stood at
65.59% of normal conservation capacity, impounding 2,224,588 acre-feet, up
from 47.54% (1,612,502 AF) of normal conservation a year ago at this time.
The Mexican Reservoirs report shows, as a whole, a total of 70.33% average
capacity. All Mexican Reservoirs are below 100% capacity at this time.
As of 12/26/15:
The United States has 1,371,721 AF in Amistad and 852,867 AF in Falcon.
Mexico has 561,822 AF in Amistad and 669,646 AF in Falcon.
The Amistad Reservoir is currently at:
1092.17 ft -24.83 with a release of 20.0 cms / 706 cfs
Falcon Reservoir is currently at:
285.33
ft -15.86 with a release of 5.0 cms / 177 cfs
Interoffice Memorandum
To:
Commissioners
Thru:
Bridget C. Bohac, Chief Clerk
Richard A. Hyde, P.E., Executive Director
From:
Brent Wade, Deputy Director
Office of Waste
Date: November 20, 2015
Docket No.: 2015-0870-RUL
Subject:
Commission Approval for Proposed Rulemaking
Chapter 39, Public Notice
Chapter 295, Water Rights, Procedural
Chapter 297, Water Rights, Substantive
Chapter 331, Underground Injection Control
HB 655: Aquifer Storage and Recovery
Rule Project No. 2015-022-331-WS
Background and reason(s) for the rulemaking:
The rulemaking is needed to implement House Bill (HB) 655, which was passed during the
84th Texas Legislature, 2015. HB 655 amended the Texas Water Code (TWC), Chapters 11,
27, and 36 to address requirements for authorization to inject and recover water as part of
an aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) project. ASR involves the use of one or more
injection wells for the purpose of placing a water supply into a subsurface geologic
formation, or aquifer, for storage so that the water may be subsequently recovered and
used by the project operator.
The rulemaking also implements a portion of HB 2031, 84th Texas Legislature, 2015. HB
2031 relates to the diversion, treatment, and use of marine seawater and the discharge of
treated marine seawater and waste resulting from the desalination of marine seawater.
Because the definition section of 30 TAC Chapter 297 will require amendment to
implement both HB 655 and HB 2031, this rulemaking is including the definition of
"marine seawater" in Section 297.1 to avoid an open section conflict under Texas Register
publication requirements. The rest of the implementation of HB 2031 is planned as a
separate rulemaking.
Scope of the rulemaking:
The rulemaking will amend existing requirements for authorization of an ASR project.
Under the revised rules the requirements for a pilot project, followed by a final
authorization, is changed to a single authorization for an ASR project.
A.) Summary of what the rulemaking will do:
The rulemaking will amend the following: 30 TAC Chapter 39 to include public notice
requirements for applications for Class V Underground Injection Control Wells; 30 TAC
Chapter 295 to remove requirements for a two-phase ASR project approval process; 30
TAC Chapter 297 to add definitions for "native groundwater" and "marine seawater"
(required to implement portions of HB 2031); and 30 TAC Chapter 331 to include new
Commissioners
Page 2
November 20, 2015
Re: Docket No. 2015-0870-RUL
definitions provided in HB 655, remove the requirement that injected water must meet 30
TAC Chapter 290 requirements for a public drinking water supply, include construction,
operation, and reporting requirements, and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
(TCEQ or commission) considerations prior to approval of an ASR project.
B.) Scope required by federal regulations or state statutes:
None.
C.) Additional staff recommendations that are not required by federal rule or
state statute:
None.
Statutory authority:
TWC, §5.103, Rules
TWC, §5.105, General Policy
TWC, §5.120, Conservation and Quality of Environment
TWC, §27.019, Rules, etc.
HB 655
Effect on the:
HB 655 does not create a group of affected persons who were not affected prior to passage
of this legislation. Regulatory requirements for testing of injected water are reduced from
monthly to annually, which will result in lower costs for ASR project managers.
A.) Regulated community:
Operators of ASR projects will have to comply with the requirements of this legislation.
Adoption of specific requirements for ASR, including injection and recovery of
appropriated water, will provide regulatory certainty to ASR operators.
B.) Public:
The public will benefit for ASR projects, which provide an alternative water source for
public water systems.
C.) Agency programs:
The Underground Injection Program will administer injection of water for ASR; the Water
Rights Permitting and Availability Section will be responsible for regulations pertaining to
the recovery of appropriated water.
Stakeholder meetings:
No stakeholder meetings were held; however, a public hearing is scheduled for this
rulemaking on January 22, 2016, in Austin.
Potential controversial concerns and legislative interest:
Relaxation of current state standard for quality of injected water. HB 655 amended the
Commissioners
Page 3
November 20, 2015
TWC, by adding TWC, §27.154(d), under which the TCEQ may not adopt or enforce
groundwater quality protection standards for the quality of water injected into an ASR
injection well, if those standards are more stringent than applicable federal standards.
Under current §331.184(e) that has been in place since the mid-1990s, water that is
injected for aquifer storage must meet the commission’s drinking water standards as
provided in Chapter 290, concerning primary drinking water standards. Under the current
federal rule at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §144.12(a), no well operator shall
inject any fluids containing any contaminant into an underground source of drinking water
if the presence of that contaminant may cause a violation of any primary drinking water
regulation under 40 CFR Part 142 or may otherwise adversely affect the health of persons.
Because the federal rules do not specify that injected water in aquifer storage projects must
meet primary drinking water standards, current §331.184(e), may be more stringent than
the federal standards and may have to be revised to be consistent with HB 655. This
revision applies only to the injected water and does not affect the requirements in Chapter
290.
Will this rulemaking affect any current policies or require development of
new policies?
No.
What are the consequences if this rulemaking does not go forward? Are there
alternatives to rulemaking?
Under HB 655, Section 6, the TCEQ is directed to adopt rules by May 1, 2016, to
implement the sections of TWC amended by HB 655. Adoption of rules in Chapters 39,
295, 297, and 331 are necessary to implement these changes to the TWC.
Key points in the proposal rulemaking schedule:
Anticipated proposal date: December 9, 2015
Anticipated Texas Register publication date: December 25, 2015
Anticipated public hearing date (if any): January 22, 2016
Anticipated public comment period: December 25, 2015 - February 8, 2016
Anticipated adoption date: April 27, 2016
Agency contacts:
David Murry, Rule Project Manager, Radioactive Materials Division, (512) 239-6080
Don Redmond, Staff Attorney, (512) 239-0612
Kris Hogan, Texas Register Coordinator, (512) 239-6812
Attachments
HB 655
cc:
Chief Clerk, 2 copies
Executive Director's Office
Commissioners
Page 4
November 20, 2015
Marshall Coover
Stephen Tatum
Jim Rizk
Office of General Counsel
L'Oreal Stepney
David Murry
Kris Hogan
1/7/2016
Financial Assistance Workshop
1
Who are we?
2
1
1/7/2016
TWDB Mission
To provide leadership, information, education,
and support for planning, financial assistance,
and outreach for the conservation and
responsible development of water for Texas
3
What do we do?
• Water Science and Conservation
– Conservation, Flood Mitigation,
Groundwater and Surface Water Resources
• Texas Natural Resources Information System
(TNRIS)
– Centralized Information center
• Water Supply & Infrastructure
– Financial Assistance programs, Statewide
and regional water planning
4
2
1/7/2016
Today’s Topics
• SWIFT
• Clean and Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund (SRF) Programs
• Other State Funded Programs
• Online Application System
• Meet with your Regional Team
5
Healthy Choices, Good Choices 6
3
1/7/2016
Regional Project Implementation Teams
7
Funds to Handle Projects of All Sizes
• Funding to meet all needs
• Funds Available for selected programs:
– $800+ Million average annual goal for SWIFT
– $525 Million for CWSRF
– $250 Million for DWSRF
– DFund – Based on need
8
4
1/7/2016
9
SWIFT* is:
Affordable, ongoing state financial assistance
Flexible financing to fit a variety of project needs
Not just a response to drought, but preparation for the future
The implementation phase of Texas’ state water plan
SWIFT turns planning into projects
*Comprised of 2 funds: SWIFT and SWIRFT
10
5
1/7/2016
The Origins of SWIFT
1756
• San Gabriel river runs dry, forcing missionaries to abandon their settlement
1822
• Central Texas colonists led by Stephen F. Austin lose their initial food crops to drought
1884
• Settlers in West Texas return to the East after crops fail
1956
• Drought of Record: severe statewide drought
1957
• Texas Water Development Board created; statewide water planning begins
11
The Origins of SWIFT
2013
• Texas voters approved using $2 billion from the state’s “Rainy Day Fund” to create the SWIFT program.
November 2013
12
6
1/7/2016
Water Planning in Texas
Regional Planning Groups analyze water supply needs on a 50‐year planning horizon
• Municipalities, agriculture, industry, and power generation are all considered
• Each regional plan lists recommended water management strategies and their anticipated costs
13
Water Planning in Texas
Every 5 years, the TWDB publishes the State Water Plan
• Summarizes the recommended water management strategies from the 16 regional plans
• Next edition: 2017
• TWDB’s Interactive State Water Plan
2017
Water for Texas
Coming Soon
14
7
1/7/2016
Interactive State Water Plan
TexasStateWaterPlan.org
15
SWIFT’s Role
2017
Water for Texas
Coming Soon
Regional plans develop Recommended Water Management Strategies
State Water Plan summarizes the strategies from all 16 regions
SWIFT finances implementation
of recommended strategies
The TWDB administers over a dozen financial assistance programs, but SWIFT’s connection to the State Water Plan is unique.
16
8
1/7/2016
Financing Options
Low‐Interest Loans
• 35% interest rate subsidy for 20‐year loan
• 25% interest rate subsidy for 21‐25 year loans
• 20% interest rate subsidy for 26‐30 year loans
Deferred Loans
• Principal & interest deferred up to 8 years from the date of delivery, or until end of construction
Board Participation
• TWDB purchases a temporary ownership interest in a regional water supply project, which the entity buys back over time.
* Interest rate subsidy amounts and loan terms will be re‐calculated and adopted by the Board for each cycle of SWIFT funding.
17
Financing Options
Multi‐Year Commitments
• Entities receive a commitment for the full amount of their assistance, but it is split into multiple loan closings over several years
• Allows for expanded program capacity
• Allows borrowers to incur debt as project funds are needed
• Can be used with any of the 3 available financing types
2015 $
2016 X
2017 $
2018 $
2019 X
18
9
1/7/2016
Eligible Projects
Eligible SWIFT applicants are political subdivisions (including Water Supply Corporations) that are associated with a recommended water management strategy appearing in the most recent state water plan.
• Must include a capital cost
• There must be an Infrastructure Financing Report (IFR) survey response on file for the project
19
Eligible Projects
Conservation
Meter replacement programs
Pipe replacement to address water loss
System pressure control
On‐farm high‐efficiency irrigation equipment
Clothes & dishwasher incentive programs
High efficiency plumbing fixtures
Irrigation canal lining
Education
…and many more
20
10
1/7/2016
Eligible Projects
Regional and state plans can both be amended, but the process takes time!
21
The Application Process
Step 1: Abridged Applications (Due Feb 5, 2016)
• Short, simple form (Last year’s version pictured below)
• Gives TWDB the information necessary to conduct prioritization and capacity modeling
• Online option available for next cycle
22
11
1/7/2016
Ongoing Program Development: Abridged Application Revisions
This year’s Abridged Application has new questions
• Volume of water conserved/produced
• List of all public water systems served
Clarification saves time during review for both applicants and staff
23
Step 2: Prioritization & Capacity Modeling
•
•
•
•
Projects are prioritized based on several criteria
Prioritized list is compared to program capacity based on preliminary budget info
Modeling indicates program capacity of $8 billion in the first decade of SWIFT financing
Entities whose projects rank within the program’s annual capacity are invited to submit full applications. In the first funding cycle, all the eligible entities who submitted an Abridged Application were invited to submit full applications.
24
12
1/7/2016
Prioritization Criteria
Highest Consideration
Max Points
Additional Criteria
Max Points
Population served
30
Local contribution
5
Diverse urban and rural Benefit
30
Financial Capacity
2
Regionalization (number of entities served in addition to the applicant)
30
Emergency Need
5
Percentage of water
supply needs met by the project
30
“Highest Consideration” Max Subtotal: 50
+
Readiness to Proceed
8
Demonstrated or projected conservation
15
Regional planning group priority rank
15
“Additional Criteria” Max Subtotal: 50
25
Step 3: Application, Loan Commitment, & Loan Closing
• Applications receive standard TWDB review
• Projects are taken to the Board for commitment
• Timeline from Abridged Application to loan closing is under 1 year
Feb. 3 2015
Dec. 15 2015
26
13
1/7/2016
Recap of First Funding Cycle
“If we build it, will they come?”
• No one was sure what to expect…ten applicants? A dozen?
• 48 Abridged Applications were received, requesting over $5.5 billion!
• The Texas Water Development Board closed on funding for 20 entities to complete 30 water management strategies from the State Water Plan, for a total of $3.8 billion! (Just over $899 million in 2015 funding)
27
Recap of First Funding Cycle
Round 1 SWIFT Commitments (2015 funding):
Over $106.6 million in savings!
vs. market‐rate loans (about 8.5%) 28
14
1/7/2016
Looking Ahead
Outreach
• Encouraging a wide variety of project participation
Water Planning
• New strategies will continue to be added Program Development
• Online Loan Application System
• Conservation, Innovative Technologies
• Regional Project Teams
29
Round 2 Timeline
December 1, 2015
• Abridged application solicitation opens
February 5, 2016
• Abridged applications due
Spring 2016
• Board considers prioritization
• Board identifies capacity, interest rate subsidy amounts, & loan terms
• Invitations to submit full applications
Summer 2016
• Entities submit complete applications
• Board considers and approves applications
• Board authorizes TWDB bond sale
Fall 2016
• TWDB Bond Sale
Winter 2016
• TWDB Bond Closing
• Borrowers close loans
30
15
1/7/2016
31
PURPOSE AND HISTORY
Purpose of the Fund
• Provide assistance for the construction of treatment works
• Implementing a non‐point source pollution management program
• Developing and implementing a conservation and management plan for Texas bays and estuaries systems
• Management of stormwater
• Recycling and reuse of treated water
• Other purposes as authorized.
History
• Created by Congress in 1987, amended by the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (WRRDA)
32
16
1/7/2016
IMPACT
Financial Use of Fund
• Provides financing for wastewater‐related projects at interest rates lower than those offered by commercial markets. Also provides additional subsidies for applicants meeting certain program criteria, such as disadvantaged communities and green projects.
Financial Impact
• Since 1987, Texas has closed 819 fundings totaling over $6.9 billion.
33
ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS
Cities
Counties
Districts
Other Political Subdivisions
Private entities in limited circumstances
Indian Tribal Organizations
River Authorities
34
17
1/7/2016
ELIGIBLE PROJECTS
Wastewater treatment facilities
Conservation
Collection systems
Non‐point source pollution control
Wastewater recycling and reuse
Estuary management projects
Planning, acquisition, design, and construction components
Stormwater control*
*Projects need not have a water treatment aspect to be eligible.
35
ELIGIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS
Program Requirements
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Good Faith Effort Procurement
(equivalency funding)
Architectural & Engineering Procurement
American
Consistency with NEPA
Davis‐Bacon wage rules
(all fundings)
(all fundings)
Iron & Steel
(all treatment works projects)
Fiscal Sustainability Plans
(Loans)
Increased Public Awareness thru
Signage
36
18
1/7/2016
Disadvantaged Community Subsidy
$4.8 million
Available for Purchase of Bonds/Loans
$14.3 million
Total Funds Available
$506 million
$525 million
FUNDING CAPACITY
Green Projects Subsidy
37
CWSRF FUNDING OPTIONS
Low Interest Financing
• Equivalency (Federal) – 1.55% below market rate
• Non‐Equivalency (Non‐Federal) – 1.2% below market rate
Repayment Terms
• Up to 30 years
Loan Origination Fee
• 1.85% loan origination fee (applied to loan funds only)
Principal Forgiveness Programs
• Disadvantaged Community Subsidy
• Green Project Subsidy
38
19
1/7/2016
DISADVANTAGED FUNDING
SUBSIDY
Eligibility
• Service area must be 75% of the State’s Annual Median Household Income
• Household Cost Factor:
• If serving water OR sewer only, must be ≥ 1%
• If serving water AND sewer, must be ≥ 2%
• Other considerations include unemployment rate and population trends
Funding Availability
• Amount of available disadvantaged funds determined on an annual basis
• Principal Forgiveness of 30%, 50%, or 70% of project costs
39
GREEN PROJECT SUBSIDY
Eligibility
• Green costs must represent of 30% or greater of Total Project Costs
• Four categories:
• Green Infrastructure
• Water Efficiency
• Energy Efficiency
• Environmentally Innovative
• Amount of available funds determined on an annual basis
• Principal forgiveness of up to 15% of green costs
40
20
1/7/2016
CWSRF COST SAVINGS VS. MARKET
Funding Option
Cost of
Funds
CWSRF Amount of $10,000,000
over 30 yrs.
Pymts. –
30 Years
P.V. of Pymts. 30 Years
Market –
Borrower-AA
2.63%
$14,762,761
$11,822,667
CWSRF
1.45%
$12,504,085
$10,000,000
$2,258,676
$1,822,667
Savings
Using CWSRF
Savings
15.4%
Note: Lending rates current as of January 6, 2016. For illustrative purposes only. CWSRF rates are locked in at closing. 41
RATING CRITERIA
Publically‐
Owned Treatment Works
(CWA §212 projects)
• Addressing Enforcement Issues
• Impacts to Water Quality
• Serving Unserved Areas
• Regionalization
• Reduction/Prevention of System Overflows
• Affordability
• Effective Management
21
1/7/2016
RATING CRITERIA
Non‐Point Source
Estuary Management Projects
• Addressing Public Health Issues
• Groundwater Protection
• Improvements to Impaired Water Bodies
RATING CRITERIA
Other Criteria
(All Applicants & Projects)
• Manage, Reduce, Treat, or Recapture Stormwater
• Implement the reuse or recycling of wastewater and/or stormwater
• Projects Undertaken by Financially Disadvantaged Communities
22
1/7/2016
45
Purpose of the Fund
• Provides financing to public drinking water systems for projects that facilitate compliance with primary drinking water regulations or otherwise significantly further the health protection objectives of the Safe Drinking Water Act. History
• Authorized by the Safe Drinking Water Act and established in 1997; administered by the Texas Water Development Board in collaboration with TCEQ.
46
23
1/7/2016
Closings
• 357 projects totaling approximately $1.4 billion
47
Existing Community Public Water Systems
• Political Subdivisions
• Non‐Profit Water Supply Corporations
• Privately Owned Community Water Systems
Non‐Profit, Non‐Community, Public Water Systems
State Agencies
48
24
1/7/2016
Water Treatment Facilities
Distribution Systems
Upgrade or Replace Water Infrastructure
Consolidation of Systems
Purchasing Additional Capacity
Source Water Protection
Address Standards of the Safe Drinking Water Act
Planning, acquisition, design, and construction components
49
Program Requirements
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Good Faith Effort Procurement
Consistency with NEPA/Federal Crosscutters
American Iron Davis‐Bacon & Steel
Wages
(for public water systems)
50
25
1/7/2016
Available Bonds/Loan Funds:
Disadvantaged Community Funds:
$237,209,400
$7,831,305
Green Project Subsidy:
$959,295
Total Funds Available:
$250,000,000
Very Small System Subsidy: $2,000,000
Urgent Need Subsidy:
$2,000,000
51
Low Interest Financing
• 1.25% below market rate
Repayment Terms
• Up to 30 years
Loan Origination Fee
• 2.25% loan origination fee (applied to loan funds only)
Principal Forgiveness Programs
• Disadvantaged Community Subsidy
• Very Small Systems
• Urgent Need
• Green Project Subsidy
52
26
1/7/2016
Eligibility:
• Service area must be 75% of the State’s Annual Median Household Income
• Household Cost Factor:
• If serving water OR sewer only, must be ≥ 1%
• If serving water AND sewer, must be ≥ 2%
• Other considerations include unemployment rate and population trends
Funding Availability:
• Amount of available disadvantaged funds determined on an annual basis
• Principal Forgiveness of 30%, 50%, or 70% of project costs
53
Eligibility:
• System serves no more than 1,000 in population
• Project must address a water quality or quantity issue.
• $2,000,000 set aside annually
• Up to $200,000 in principal forgiveness per project
54
27
1/7/2016
Eligibility:
• Project addresses unforeseen situations that require immediate attention to protect health and safety:
• Unanticipated reduction of water supply due to drought
• Catastrophic natural event or accident
• Contamination of water supply affecting a substantial number of customers
• $2,000,000 set aside annually
• Up to $500,000 in principal forgiveness per project
55
Eligibility:
• Green costs must represent of 30% or greater of Total Project Costs.
• Four categories:
• Green Infrastructure
• Water Efficiency
• Energy Efficiency
• Environmentally Innovative
• Amount of available funds determined on an annual basis
• Principal forgiveness of up to 15% of green costs
56
28
1/7/2016
Funding Option
Cost of
Funds
DWSRF Amount of $10,000,000
over 30 yrs.
Pymts. –
30 Years
P.V. of Pymts. 30 Years
Market –
Borrower-AA
2.63%
$14,762,761
$11,858,223
DWSRF
1.43%
$12,465,350
$10,000,000
$2,297,411
$1,858,223
Savings
Using DWSRF
Savings
15.7%
Note: Lending rates current as of January 6, 2016. For illustrative purposes only. DWSRF rates are locked in at closing. 57
Public Water System Projects
• Health and Compliance
• Secondary Compliance Source Water Protection Projects
• Groundwater System Vulnerability
• Surface Water System Vulnerability
All Projects
• Disadvantaged Community
58
29
1/7/2016
59
Project
Solicitation
Rating
Process
Draft IUP
Invitation
Finalize IUP
Public
to Apply
and Approval
Review
Application Technical Review & Board Commitment
Transaction
Closing
60
30
1/7/2016
March 3
PIFs Due
June
Draft IUP Published
July
Public Comment
August
IUP Approved
September
Applications Due
NOTE: Submit by March 3, 2016 to be included in the initial IUP. However, Project Information Forms may be submitted at anytime throughout the year!
61
For SFY 2017, entities must update any Project Information Form in the SFY 2016 IUP to be included in the SFY 2017 IUP.
At minimum, must update:
‐ readiness to proceed information
‐ for disadvantaged community – the data
and utility rates
62
31
1/7/2016
• To assist entities that need to fund large projects over a period of time.
• Commitments up to five year period.
• Interest rate reduction (e.g. 120 or 155 basis points for CWSRF and 125 basis points for DWSRF) locked for the five year period.
63
January
December
November
February
Projects Can
March
Be Submitted
October
April
Throughout The Year!
September
May
August
June
July
64
32
1/7/2016
Telephone: (512) 463‐0991
Email: [email protected]
Web: www.twdb.texas.gov/financial/programs
65
66
33
1/7/2016
Agricultural Water Conservation Loans & Grants
Economically Distressed Areas Program (EDAP)
Rural Water Assistance Fund (RWAF)
State Participation Program (SP)
Texas Water Development Fund (DFund)
State Water Implementation Fund for Texas (SWIFT)
Key words: variety & flexibility
67
TWDB sells bonds to finance projects
• AAA bond rating
• Low rates based on TWDB’s cost of funds
• Rates vary, but are always a good deal
68
34
1/7/2016
Political Subdivisions
Cities
Counties
Nonprofit Water Supply Corporations
Special Law Districts
Water Improvement Districts
Water Control & Improvement Districts
Irrigation Districts
Groundwater Conservation Districts
Others
69
Water
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Wells
Distribution systems
Distribution & transmission lines
System acquisition
Pumping Facilities
Storage reservoirs & tanks
Water treatment plants
Purchase of water rights
Meter replacement
Desalination
Well field acquisition
70
35
1/7/2016
Wastewater
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Sewer treatment plants
Collection systems
Lift stations
System acquisition
System rehabilitation
Nonpoint source pollution abatement
Trunk lines
Reuse projects
71
Flood Control
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Storm water retention basins
Stream channel enlargement
Bridge modification/reconstruction
Floodplain acquisition
Relocation of residents from floodplain
Beach re‐nourishment
Flood warning systems
Coastal erosion control
Flood management plan development
72
36
1/7/2016
U.S. Iron & Steel Water conservation & drought contingency plans required for assistance greater than $500,000
Historically Underutilized Business (HUB) reporting for SWIFT
Water supply projects must be consistent with the State Water Plan
Review of legislative requirements regarding water loss limit thresholds
Updated Annual Financial Reports
73
74
37
1/7/2016
DFund’s key feature: flexibility
Water, wastewater, flood control, municipal solid waste
Planning, Acquisition, Design, and Construction
75
Eligible Flood Control projects include:
• Storm water retention basins
• Stream channel enlargement
• Bridge modification/reconstruction
• Floodplain land acquisition for use in public open space
• Relocation of residents from a floodplain
• Public beach re‐nourishment
• Flood warning systems
• Coastal erosion control
• Flood management plan development
76
38
1/7/2016
DFund is TWDB’s oldest Financial Assistance program
• Reflects the agency’s broad original mandate
• No special eligibility requirements
• Uncomplicated application & review process
• Large Capacity
77
Maximum Term: 20 ‐ 30 years*
Current rates (based on TWDB cost of funds)**
• Tax exempt: 20 years – 3.18%
• Taxable: 20 years – 3.82%
*Extended terms available with approval
** As of December 29, 2015
78
39
1/7/2016
79
EDAP projects provide new service or improve existing infrastructure to meet State standards
• Planning, Acquisition, Design, and Construction phases are all eligible
80
40
1/7/2016
What is “economically distressed”?
• Not greater than 75% of the State’s median household income (based on Census or surveys)
Substandard or non‐existent infrastructure
• Water or sewer services are inadequate to meet minimum state standards
Financial resources are inadequate to meet those needs
Residential subdivision was established on or before 6/1/2005
81
One of the few state programs that offers grants
• Assistance comes as either a loan, a grant, or a combination of both
• Percentage of grant depends on several factors: project phase, calculation which compares project impacts to similar projects in the region, nuisance determination
82
41
1/7/2016
Model Subdivision Rules (MSR)
• Must be adopted by the entity with authority to do so in the project area
• Training & more info available on the TWDB web site
Nuisance Determination
• Texas Department of State Health Services
• Required to obtain greater than 50% grant
83
• Maximum Maturity 20 years
• Tax‐Exempt Interest Rate: 20 years – 3.02%
Based on most recent EDAP bond sale.
84
42
1/7/2016
85
RWAF provides small rural water utilities with low‐cost financing for water and wastewater construction projects
• Planning, acquisition, design, and construction are eligible
• Attractive interest rate loans with long‐term finance options (up to 40 years)
• Tax exemption for project supplies
• Near tax‐exempt equivalent rates for WSC’s
86
43
1/7/2016
Eligible Applicants
Rural political subdivisions or nonprofit water supply corporations serving a population of 10,000 or less
Counties in which no urban area has a population exceeding 50,000
87
RWAF can Fund Regionalization Projects
• Obtaining water or wastewater service from a larger utility
• Consolidation of neighboring utilities
88
44
1/7/2016
• Maximum Term: 40 years
• Taxable Interest Rate: 40 years – 4.15%
(as of most recent RWAF bond sale)
As of December 29, 2015
89
90
45
1/7/2016
Texas’ population is expected to nearly double by 2060
Public water systems must adapt to tomorrow’s needs, but only have revenue from today’s customers.
91
State Participation allows for the right‐sizing of a regional water supply or wastewater project.
TWDB takes ownership stake in the portion being built for future demands
New customers arrive and begin paying bills
Borrower buys TWDB’s portion over time
92
46
1/7/2016
Not technically a loan or grant
• “Master Agreement” outlines payment schedule
• Designed so that payments begin as demand comes online
• Term varies, but is usually 34 years
• State participates in the portion being built for future
demand
• Limited to 80% of total costs for water projects
• Limited to 50% of total costs for wastewater projects
93
Special Considerations
The project cannot be reasonably financed without the program’s assistance
The proposed facility contemplates optimal regional development
94
47
1/7/2016
95
Loan Program
Available to political subdivisions or state agencies for facility improvements or loans to individuals
Applications may be submitted at any time, subject to availability of funds
Loan maturities 7 years (maximum 10 years with approval)
96
48
1/7/2016
• Maximum Term: 10 Years
• Taxable Interest Rate: 7 years – 0.71%
As of December 29, 2015
97
Grant Program
Annual Request for Applications
Up to $600,000 per year
Grants for technical assistance, demonstration, technology transfer, education, and metering projects
Topics vary each year to address current issues in agricultural water conservation
98
49
1/7/2016
Visit www.twdb.texas.gov to find information about other TWDB programs:
• Flood Protection Planning Assistance
• FEMA Flood Mitigation Assistance
• FEMA Severe Repetitive Loss Funding
• Groundwater Conservation District Loan Program
99
Texas Water Infrastructure Coordination Committee
“Helping you identify funding options for your project. A one‐stop shop for information and technical assistance.”
www.twicc.org
Submit Project Profile Form to [email protected]
100
50
1/7/2016
101
Housekeeping
https://ola.twdb.texas.gov
• Compatible with most commonly used browsers (i.e.,
Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox)
Note: Be sure to update your browser
with the latest security enhancements
102
51
1/7/2016
What can OLA be used for?
• Online Project Information Form –
– Clean Water State Revolving Fund
– Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
– SWIFT Abridged Application
• Online Applications –
– SRF Programs
– SWIFT
– All State Funded Financial Assistance Programs
103
Registration
• Username is your email
address
• Password must be:
– 8 characters
– include 1 numeric
character, and
– 1 special character
• Password is case sensitive
• Forgotten Password features
104
52
1/7/2016
Dashboards
• Displays all PIF and Application records
associated with your username
105
Assign Roles
• Only Applicant can Assign User Roles
• Applicant may add and delete users on specific
records
106
53
1/7/2016
Functionality of User Roles
Applicant
Contributor
Create PIF
Function
X
X
Edit an Assigned PIF
X
X
View PIF
X
X
X
Submit
X
Un-Submit
X
X
View PIF Status
X
X
Audit
X
X
Assign one or more users
to a PIF
X
Grant Submit Privileges
X
Save as PDF
X
Roll-Forward
X
Viewer
X
107
Features Status Updates
• Status of your record can be conveniently found on the users
Dashboard
• The system notifies, by e-mail, all users listed as applicant and
contributor of status updates throughout the Project
Information Form’s “Life Cycle”.
108
54
1/7/2016
Features Help Buttons
• Help buttons provide more detailed instruction
for specific questions
109
Features Data Entry Helpers
• Provides quick data entry for specific fields
110
55
1/7/2016
Features Attachments
• Note: All attachments must be in PDF format
– Free PDF converters may be found online
111
Features Automatic Save
• Information entered into all data fields will
automatically be saved
112
56
1/7/2016
Features Record Review
• The system will automatically list all known issues with the
form prior to submittal
• User may quickly identify missing information by clicking the
associated link(s)
113
Features –
PIF Roll Forward
• Allows applicant to update all PIF information
to be rolled over for the next funding cycle.
114
57
1/7/2016
Features Auto Log Out
The Online Loan Application system will
automatically log you out
after 30 minutes of inactivity
115
Features Auto-Calculations
• Embedded formulas to perform Disadvantaged
Calculations
• Census source data stored in system to eliminate
errors
116
58
1/7/2016
Questions
117
Contact Information
Telephone (512) 463-0991
Email:
[email protected]
118
59
1/7/2016
Let’s Stay in Touch
facebook.com/twdboard
twitter.com/twdb (@twdb)
Sign up for electronic updates at
www.twdb.texas.gov/newsmedia/signup.html
119
60
AGENDA ITEM
7.a.
DATE SUBMITTED
MEETING DATE
02/15/2016
02/23/2016
1. Agenda Item: Consultation with City Attorney Regarding matters to Economic
Development (T.G.C. 551.087)
2. Party Making Request: Marco A. Vega, P.E., General Manager
3. Nature of Request: Item for Board Information and Discussion.
4. Budgeted:
Bid Amount:
Under Budget:
Budgeted Amount:
Over Budget:
Amount Remaining:
5. Reimbursement:
6. Routing:
Flatau, Nyla
7. Staff's Recommendation: Item for Board Information and Discussion.
9. MPU General Manager: N/A - MAV
AGENDA ITEM
7.b.
DATE SUBMITTED
MEETING DATE
02/15/2016
02/23/2016
1. Agenda Item: Consultation with City Attorney Regarding Legal Issues Related
to CCN Approval Process. (T.G.C. 551.071)
3. Nature of Request: Item for Board Information and Discussion.
4. Budgeted:
Bid Amount:
Under Budget:
Budgeted Amount:
Over Budget:
Amount Remaining:
5. Reimbursement:
6. Routing:
Flatau, Nyla
7. Staff's Recommendation: Item for Board Information and Discussion.
AGENDA ITEM
7.c.
DATE SUBMITTED
MEETING DATE
02/17/2016
02/23/2016
1. Agenda Item: Consultation with City Attorney regarding legal aspects of
electricity contract. (T.G.C. 551.071)
3. Nature of Request: Item for Board discussion.
4. Budgeted:
Bid Amount:
Under Budget:
Budgeted Amount:
Over Budget:
Amount Remaining:
5. Reimbursement:
6. Routing:
Flatau, Nyla
7. Staff's Recommendation: Item for Board discussion.
10. Director of Finance for Utilities:

February 23, 2016 - McAllen Public Utility

Transcription

Similar documents

I`m helping to end MS by participating in the 2016 Jayman BUILT MS

The Board of Directors of Qatar Fuel (WOQOD) is pleased to invite

5 `S` Training Program at ABV-IIITM, Gwalior on 21.07.2016

Porky Expo Flyer

The NeuLion Report

Sept 30-Oct 2, 2016 Nov 4-6, 2016 @Camp Tadmor

4 star ALOE HOTEL, PAPHOS

the Guidelines for the registration on

Ticket plus hotel packages for the Chelsea Flower Show 2016

loyola institute for ministry on-campus open house thursday, may 12