A. PUB26-074 Consider recommending adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, a Texas home-rule municipal corporation, authorizing the City Manager to execute Change Order No. 4 to the contract between the City of Denton and Oscar Renda Contracting, Inc., for the construction and movement of public water/wastewater utilities in support of TxDOT’s I-35 widening from the split to US-380 for the Capital Projects Department; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date (IFB 7968-004 - Change Order No. 4 in the not-to-exceed amount of $2,722,204.25, for a total contract award aggregated to $20,038,587.25).

[A. PUB26-074 Consider recommending adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, a Texas home-rule municipal corporation, authorizing the City Manager to execute Change Order No. 4 to the contract between the City of Denton and Oscar Renda Contracting, Inc., for the construction and movement of public water/wastewater utilities in support of TxDOT’s I-35 widening from the split to US-380 for the Capital Projects Department; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date (IFB 7968-004 - Change Order No. 4 in the not-to-exceed amount of $2,722,204.25, for a total contract award aggregated to $20,038,587.25).]

NOW WE'LL TAKE ITEM A FOR QUESTIONS. >> GOOD MORNING, SEAN MESSICK, PROJECT MANAGER, CAPITAL PROJECTS. I DO HAVE A SMALL PRESENTATION FOR YOU. SO THIS IS I-35 UTILITY RELOCATION SPLIT TO 380. PROJECT SCOPE WAS WATER WASTEWATER UTILITY RELOCATION IN SUPPORT OF I-35. TEXAS TEXTILE WIDENING. THE PROJECT IS 100% REIMBURSABLE.

IT'S APPROXIMATELY 10,000 LINEAR FEET OF WATER AND WASTEWATER. AND AGAIN, IT WENT FROM THE MERGE OF I-35 TO SPLIT UP TO UNIVERSITY DRIVE, WHICH IS 380. THIS IS CHANGE ORDER FOUR. SO THIS IS FOR THE EASEMENT ACQUISITION. SO WORK HAD TO BE RESCHEDULED DUE TO THE PENDING EASEMENTS. THIS PROJECT WENT WENT OUT TO CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT HAVING FOR EASEMENTS FOR THIS PROJECT, THE BIGGEST ONE BEING THE UNT INTRAMURAL FIELD AT THE CORNER OF I-35 AND BONNIE BRAE. SINCE THE PARCELS WERE ACQUIRED IN TIME, THIS CONTRACTOR HAD TO RESCHEDULE. BASICALLY, THIS IS ALL REVERSING FLOW BECAUSE THE MAIN LINE THAT WENT UNDER 35 HAD TO BE REDONE. SO THESE PARCELS REQUIRED MULTIPLE RESEQUENCING BECAUSE AGAIN, NOT HAVING THOSE IN THE PROJECT WORK, NOT BEING ABLE TO BE COMPLETED THERE, THIS, THIS MADE THE CONTRACTOR STAY ON SITE LONGER FOR 208 DAYS. THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT DURATION WAS 180 DAYS. ADDITIONAL SEQUENCING REQUIRED. AGAIN, ADDITIONAL MOBILIZATION. SO BETWEEN I-35 GOING FROM ONE SIDE TO THE NEXT, IT ADDS HAVING TRUCKS COME IN, MOVING EQUIPMENT FROM ONE SIDE TO THE NEXT. THE CONTRACT AMOUNT IS 17,000,003 16383. THIS CHANGE ORDERS FOR $2.7 MILLION FOR A NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF $20 MILLION. QUESTIONS? YES, SIR.

>> COULD YOU GO BACK TO THE MAP THAT YOU HAD EARLIER? THANK YOU. SO WHERE WAS THE SECTION THAT

COULD NOT. >> SO THE THE BIGGEST HOLD UP, IF YOU CAN SEE THE MOUSE IS RIGHT HERE. THIS UNT FIELD. WHAT WE HAD IS WE HAD A SEWER LINE CROSSING 35 THAT TOOK MOST OF THE FLOW SINCE WE WERE REDIRECTING ALL THE FLOW DUE TO TXDOT AND ALL THE BRIDGE PIERS

[00:05:02]

THAT WERE GOING ON. THE FLOW WAS NOW COMING THROUGH HERE. BUT AGAIN, SINCE WE DID NOT HAVE THIS PARCEL, WE COULD NOT DO ANY OF THIS WORK, WHICH AGAIN, SWAPPING ANY OF THE FLOWS DETERRED ALL THE WORK THAT THEY COULD REALLY DO. SO THEY COULD PUT IN THE WASTEWATER LINES IN CERTAIN AREAS. BUT AGAIN, THE TIE INS. SO AGAIN, MOVING EQUIPMENT BACK AND FORTH BECAUSE WE WEREN'T ALLOWING OPEN EXCAVATIONS IN CERTAIN AREAS, BECAUSE AGAIN,

THE TRAFFIC ALONG THIS. SO AGAIN, NOT HAVING. >> SO THIS WAS AN UNFORESEEN DEVELOPMENT OR WAS IT SOMETHING THAT CAME UP AFTER CONSTRUCTION STARTED? SO HOW DID IT COME ABOUT THAT THIS WAS NOT KNOWN IN ADVANCE SINCE OBVIOUSLY THE FREEWAY PLANNED CONSTRUCTION.

>> WAS AGAIN, EVERYTHING WAS KNOWN. IT WAS THE FACT THAT WE DIDN'T GET THE PARCEL IN TIME.

>> THAT YOU SAY. >> THAT WE DIDN'T GET THE PARCEL IN TIME. WE DIDN'T WE DID NOT ACQUIRE THIS UNT FIELD UNTIL AFTER THE ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT.

>> YOU DIDN'T HAVE THE LAND TO MAKE THAT ADJUSTMENT. >> SO WE WE COULDN'T DO ANY OF THIS WORK IN THIS FIELD AT ALL. AND THAT THAT'S A A BORE UNDER 35. THAT WAS 700FT LONG.

>> SO I UNDERSTAND THE COMPLEXITY OF THE PROBLEM. I'M JUST CURIOUS, WITH THE FREEWAY CONSTRUCTION HAVING BEEN PLANNED FOR SO LONG AND SO ON AND SO FORTH, HOW IS IT THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE THIS IN THE ORIGINAL PLAN FOR THE CONTRACTOR?

>> YEAH. NO SCOPE CHANGES. AGAIN, THIS IS JUST PARCEL ACQUISITION HELD UP THE WORK BEING DONE. SO THAT WAS THAT'S THE THAT'S WHY THEY HAD TO STAY ON SITE LONGER.

>> OKAY. SO THIS IS SIMPLY TIME BECAUSE OF THE DELAY IN ACQUIRING THE PARCEL. CORRECT.

IS THAT MORE OR LESS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. CORRECT. YES. BECAUSE I THOUGHT YOU WERE SAYING YOU DIDN'T KNOW THAT YOU WERE GOING TO HAVE THIS PROBLEM COME UP. SO THE PROBLEM WAS THE PARCEL, NOT THE PROJECTION OF THE ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION WORK. CORRECT. AND THE ADDED MONIES

ARE STRICTLY FOR THE DELAY. >> AS FOR. >> THE PARCEL CORRECT.

>> THAT ADDITIONAL TIME FOR THEM BEING ON SITE, ALL THE EQUIPMENT THEY HAD TO KEEP ON

SITE. YES. >> SO WHAT HELD UP THE ACQUISITION OF THE PARCEL. THAT

OUTSIDE YOUR DEPARTMENT? >> PART OF THIS WAS I TOOK OVER THIS PROJECT. SO SO AGAIN, A LOT OF THIS WAS WAS ALREADY BEING DEALT. SO I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE MISCOMMUNICATION HAPPENED. WHAT FELL OFF ON GETTING THE PARCEL. ALL I KNOW IS THAT WHEN I FINALLY TOOK IT

OVER I GOT THE PARCEL FOUR MONTHS LATER. >> TONY, DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT?

>> I WOULD JUST SAY, YOU KNOW, I THINK THIS PARCEL IS PROBABLY A OWNED BY THE UNIVERSITY AND AT LEAST HAVING DEALT WITH THE UNIVERSITY FROM AN ELECTRICAL STANDPOINT, IT JUST TAKES SOME TIME. THEY HAVE A LOT OF BUREAUCRACY. IT TAKES A LONG TIME.

>> BUT YEAH. GOOD MORNING. BOARD MEMBERS, MEMBERS. SETH GARCIA, DIRECTOR OF CAPITAL PROJECTS. SO TONY'S CORRECT. WE WENT THROUGH ABOUT A YEAR OF NEGOTIATIONS WITH UNT. THIS WAS THEIR INTRAMURAL FIELD. THEY WANTED SOME EXTENSIVE CHANGES TO THE INTRAMURAL FIELD. SO AS WE CAME THROUGH WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WASTEWATER LINE, WE TORE OUT A LARGE PART OF THEIR SPRINKLER SYSTEM, THEIR SOD. SO PART OF THAT NEGOTIATION BACK AND FORTH WAS A FAIR VALUE FOR DOING THE REPLACEMENTS OF THEIR ENTIRE IRRIGATION AS WELL AS SORTING THAT FIELD. AND SO I BELIEVE WE ENDED UP SPENDING ALMOST 1.2 MILLION. THAT'S GOING TO BE REIMBURSED JUST FOR THE EASEMENTS THAT WE NEEDED. DME HAD SOME UTILITIES GOING THROUGH THERE AS WELL. SO WE WERE TRYING TO NEGOTIATE ALL THE LAND AREA THAT WE NEEDED AND COME UP WITH ONE KIND OF PRICE AND PLAN TOGETHER. AND SO THROUGH THAT, IT LENGTHENED THE THE TOTAL TIME TO ACQUIRE THAT PARCEL, I THINK, TO ALMOST 15 MONTHS. ONE THING I WANTED TO STATE EARLIER TO, TO ONE OF YOUR EARLIER QUESTIONS IS, SO ALTHOUGH WE DIDN'T HAVE THESE PARCELS DOWN IN THIS BOTTOM CORNER, TEX-DOT WAS PUSHING US TO MEET THEIR TIMELINE TO LET THIS PROJECT. SO THEY WERE ESSENTIALLY TELLING US, GET OUT THERE, START YOUR RELOCATIONS ON EVERYTHING ELSE, WHICH IS WHY WE LET THE PROJECT TO HAVE WORK DONE IN OTHER AREAS TO TRY AND CLEAR AS MUCH AS WE COULD, SO THEY COULD LET THE LARGE PROJECT.

>> OKAY, WELL, THAT'S GOOD TO KNOW. AND IT'S STILL ELIGIBLE FOR REIMBURSEMENT EVEN THOUGH

THE DELAY IS ON OUR END, NOT ON THEIR END. >> THAT IS CORRECT. SO AS LONG AS WE STRUCTURE IT AS THESE ARE ACTUAL COSTS INCURRED, AND WE'RE NOT JUST PAYING FOR ESSENTIALLY FREE TIME TO THE CONTRACTOR. SO THAT'S PART OF WHAT'S TAKING SO LONG WITH THIS CHANGE ORDER. WE'VE BEEN GOING BACK AND FORTH WITH TXDOT FOR ABOUT A YEAR TO ENSURE THIS IS GOING TO BE HOPEFULLY 100% REIMBURSABLE. SO WE HAVE TO PROCESS THE CHANGE ORDER, AND THEN YOU'LL SEE A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT TO OUR TEX DOT REIMBURSEMENT THAT WILL COME SHORTLY AFTER. THAT WILL RAISE THE TOTAL REIMBURSABLE AMOUNT TO THE 20 MILLION.

>> WELL, THEN I JUST WANT TO SAY I'M REALLY GLAD WE PULLED THIS FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION.

THANK YOU. >> HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? GO AHEAD, MR.

RAYNER. >> SO THE REASON WE'RE IN THIS FIX IS BECAUSE THE STATE WAS

[00:10:01]

PUSHING YOU TO PROCEED WITH WHAT YOU'RE DOING, EVEN THOUGH YOU DID NOT HAVE THE OWNERSHIP

OR THE ABILITY TO DO WHAT THEY WANTED DONE. IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> AND SO FOR THAT REASON, WE'RE GOING TO GET HOPEFULLY ALL OR A LARGE PORTION OF THIS

$2.7 MILLION. >> YEAH, WE SHOULD BE GETTING THE 100% BACK.

>> OKAY. AND SO IT LEADS TO ANOTHER QUESTION. THIS IS CHANGE ORDER NUMBER FOUR.

>> YES. >> SO WHAT ARE THE OTHER THREE? >> THE OTHER THREE. THERE WERE SEVERAL DESIGN CHANGES. IF I CAN SEE WHERE THIS MOUSE IS, I WANT TO SAY THERE WAS ONE FOR THIS BOARD. WE WERE ACTUALLY GOING TO REBORE THIS LINE HERE. THERE WERE TOO MANY CONFLICTS WHEN THE THE CONTRACTOR DID ALL THE POTHOLING. SO WE ENDED UP CHANGING THIS TO REUSE THE EXISTING PIPE THAT WAS THERE. AGAIN, THEY WERE ALL SMALL ITEMS. WHEN IT REALLY CAME DOWN TO IT, I WANT TO SAY THERE WAS TREES THAT WERE CALLED OUT TO BE REMOVED. SO THERE WAS JUST THE ODDS AND END THINGS THAT CHANGING SOME OF THE MANHOLES FROM A PRECAST TO A CAST IN PLACE. AGAIN, SOME OF THOSE WERE DEPARTMENT, YOU KNOW, SAYING, HEY, WE'D RATHER HAVE PRECAST OR CAST IN PLACE. THAT'S ABOUT IT THAT I CAN THINK OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.

>> AND SO THERE WERE COSTS INVOLVED WITH THAT, THAT WE PAID FOR.

>> THERE WAS AND AGAIN, THERE WAS IT WAS A WHATEVER'S DEDUCTED, WHATEVER WAS ADDED.

AGAIN, WE BALANCE THOSE PRETTY WELL ON THE CHANGE ORDERS BEING MAYBE $40,000. THEY'RE VERY MINOR WITH THE WHOLE SCOPE, WITH THE WHOLE DIFFERENCES OF WHAT WE WERE DOING.

>> AND I DON'T REMEMBER, BUT DID DO THOSE OTHER THREE CHANGE ORDERS. WE WERE AWARE OF THIS.

WE APPROVED IT. I DON'T RECALL. >> THOSE USUALLY USE THE CONTINGENCY THAT'S BUILT INTO THE CONTRACT. SO SO I HAVE THE AUTHORIZATION GO THROUGH OUR OUR BOARD, OUR INTERNAL REVIEW

AND GET THEM DONE THROUGH PROCUREMENT. >> AT TO A CERTAIN MONETARY

AMOUNT. >> CORRECT. 5% IS WHAT WE HAVE FOR CONTINGENCY. AND I WANT TO

SAY. >> SO IT ALL FALLS INTO THAT. >> I WON'T SAY ANYTHING. OVER

$100,000 IS WHAT IT HAS. >> TO BE, BECAUSE I THINK 40 IS A PRETTY GOOD AMOUNT OF MONEY

FOR TWO, BUT I APPRECIATE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. >> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I JUST HAVE ONE ON THE THE EASEMENT THAT WAS ACQUIRED. WAS IT A TEMPORARY

CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT OR IS IT NOW A PERMANENT EASEMENT? >> IT'S A PERMANENT EASEMENT. I BELIEVE THERE WAS A TEMPORARY WITH IT, BUT IT IS A PERMANENT EASEMENT.

>> OKAY. IT JUST COMMENTING ON THE PROCESS HERE, WE WERE KIND OF STUCK BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE, I GUESS YOU WOULD SAY, BETWEEN TXDOT AND UNT. IT'S IT'S A SHAME THAT THIS

SAME SEDIMENT. >> YEAH. >> SO IT ADDED 7 OR 8 MONTHS OF

WORK AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN COST TO NEGOTIATE. >> SPRINKLERS.

>> SPRINKLERS AND, AND AN OPEN FIELD. >> I MEAN, IF YOU DRIVE BY THE

FIELDS REALLY NICE NOW. >> YEAH, YEAH. SO I MEAN, THE, THE ONE BENEFIT IS THAT HOPEFULLY IT WILL NOT COST THE CITY OF DENTON ANYTHING EXTRA, BUT IT'S BUT IT'S A SHAME TO SEE THE PROCESS HUNG UP. AND JUST IN GENERAL MONEY, LOTS OF MONEY SPENT ON THIS FOR AND

LOTS OF MONTHS OF TIME. >> AN INTERESTING POINT. SO IF WE GO BACK WE HAVE THE CONTINGENCY. ANY MONEY THAT WE DO NOT RECUPERATE FROM THIS IS THAT IS THAT COME OUT OF THE CONTINGENCY OR DOES THAT COME OUT OF OUR POCKET? HOW DOES THAT.

>> WORK COME OUT OF OUR POCKET? >> OKAY, TONY. YOUR POCKET. OKAY, GOOD, GOOD.

>> THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? SO MOVED. WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.

>> ANY APPROVAL? YES. >> SECOND. >> MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. WE WILL NOW MOVE

[D. PUB26-077 Consider recommending adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, a Texas home-rule municipal corporation, authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract with Online Information Services, Inc., for fraud detection and credit risk assessment for the Customer Service Department; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date (RFP 9001 - awarded to Online Information Services, Inc., in the five (5) year not-to-exceed amount of $320,000.00).]

ON TO ITEM D. FOR ONLINE INFORMATION SERVICES FOR FRAUD DETECTION AND CREDIT RISK.

>> MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS, KRISTA HAS A SHORT PRESENTATION THAT WE HAD PREVIOUSLY PREPARED JUST IN CASE THERE WERE QUESTIONS. SO I'VE ASKED HER TO KIND OF GO THROUGH THAT AND THEN WE CAN ADDRESS YOUR QUESTIONS AS AS SHE GOES THROUGH THE PRESENTATION.

>> THANK YOU. >> LET'S SEE WHAT HAPPENS HERE. MY APOLOGIES. IT'S COMPLETELY

TAKING IT DOWN. WE'LL GIVE IT JUST A MINUTE. >> OH FIRMWARE UPDATE.

>> YEAH. BEAR WITH US WHILE WE ADVANCE OUR TECHNOLOGY. >> OUR UPDATING YOUR FIRMWARE.

[00:15:01]

OH, FUN. >> YEAH. I LOVE IT WHEN THESE THINGS HAPPEN.

>> I WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT 264 THAT'S BEING REFERENCED IN THIS PUBLIC COMMENT. AND IT HOW

DOES IT RELATE? >> IT'S NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO 263. THE 264 IS OUR ORDINANCE THAT COVERS OUR INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL CREDIT SCORING FOR DEPOSIT DETERMINATION.

>> ALL RIGHT. >> SO 263 IS WHAT WE DO IN ORDER TO MEET FEDERAL LAW FOR THE RED FLAGS ACT. AND BEING ABLE TO VALIDATE IDENTITY BEFORE OPENING A CREDIT ACCOUNT.

SO THAT'S WHAT 263 IS ABOUT. OKAY. BUT AS PART OF THAT, WE ALSO USE THAT SOFT CREDIT CHECK IN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT A CREDIT OR A DEPOSIT SHOULD BE ASSESSED AT THE START OF AN

ACCOUNT. >> YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU CLEARED IT UP FOR ME.

>> HOW DEEP CAN WE GET INTO THIS CONVERSATION? I'LL ASK THE ATTORNEY WHILE IT'S ON OUR AGENDA AS TO THE REQUEST THAT THEY ASKED, SPECIFICALLY THE AMOUNTS AND THE FINES AND THE

26-4, HOW HOW MUCH LENIENCY DO WE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT THIS? >> SORRY.

>> EXCUSE ME. YES. >> I THINK AS LONG AS IT'S GENERALLY RELATED IN CONCEPT TO THE ITEM THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING AND THE CONCEPT THAT WAS DISCUSSED IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT,

YOU'RE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF. >> SO YOU'LL BE READY TO STOP. >> US, I WILL BE.

>> TONY, DO YOU WANT ME TO GO AHEAD AND FIELD ANY QUESTIONS WHILE WE'RE WAITING AT THIS 50%

UPDATE? >> IT'S UP TO THE CHAIR. WHATEVER HE PREFERS.

>> LOOKS LIKE IT'S TAKEN ABOUT TWO MINUTES SO FAR, AND WE'RE TWO THIRDS OF THE WAY THERE, SO

I THINK WE CAN SPARE A COUPLE MORE MINUTES. >> I THINK WE NEED TO REHASH.

>> I THINK. >> IF WE GET THIS, THEN WE CAN MOVE ON AND NOT HAVE TO

BACKTRACK. >> YEAH, HOPEFULLY. >> I WAS JUST THINKING WE

SHOULD MOVE ON. >> WELL, BUT WE WON'T HAVE IT. WE WON'T HAVE A SCREEN ANYWAY.

>> SO WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? WASN'T THIS ITS FAULT? >> YEAH. WHERE IS HE NOW?

>> YEAH, YEAH. WHERE IS IT WHEN WE NEED THEM?

>> I PROMISE IT WORKED WHEN I PUT IT ON THERE BECAUSE I DOUBLE CHECKED IT.

>> THEY DON'T FEEL BAD. I WAS FORCED TO UPDATE TO WINDOWS 11 ON MY WORK LAPTOP, AND I DIDN'T

KNOW WHERE ANYTHING WAS. >> FOR COUPLE. >> OF DAYS.

HAVE YOU HAD TO DO THAT UPDATE TO WINDOWS 11? >> I THINK MY HOME COMPUTER HAS.

I DON'T THINK MY WORK HAS YET. I'M NOT SURE. >> WELL, BELIEVE ME, IF YOU UPDATE IT, YOU'D KNOW BECAUSE EVERY PROGRAM YOU USE IS LOOKS DIFFERENT. THAT WAS THE REAL

PROBLEM. YEAH. >> YEAH. I DON'T KNOW IF IF THIS IS REBOOTING LIKE THIS. I DON'T KNOW IF THE ONLINE MEETING IS THEY PROBABLY CAN'T SEE THIS FIRMWARE SCREEN, CAN THEY? SO THEY MIGHT JUST BE LOOKING AT A BLANK SCREEN OR JUST THE CAMERA VIEW PROBABLY.

YEAH. IT LOOKS LIKE THE COMPUTER HAS IS REBOOTING NOW. AND WE, WE SHOULD CONTINUE WITH

OUR PRESENTATIONS IN JUST A MOMENT. >> SO IS THIS A FORCED

EXECUTIVE SESSION IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? >> YES. THIS FELLOW OVER HERE.

>> I DON'T KNOW. THEY DID NOT INDICATE THAT. >> THEY WERE. SO WE'RE STILL

WE'RE STILL STREAMING ON ONLINE SO. >> THEY CAN SEE US. YES, SIR.

OH, DEAR. >> I. >> JUST SAW A FLASH OF A BOOT

SCREEN. SO MAYBE, MAYBE WE'LL HAVE CONTENT SOON. >> IF IT DOESN'T COME UP IN ANOTHER MOMENT. I'LL SEE IF I CAN MANUALLY TURN IT ON. WELL, IT'S STILL ON.

[00:20:30]

>> MAYBE IF THIS DOESN'T COME BACK, IS IT POSSIBLE TO MOVE TO A SECOND COMPUTER, TO THE PROJECTOR, OR DO WE NEED TO HAVE THIS SPECIFIC DEVICE WORKING?

>> IT HAS TO BE THE SPECIFIC DEVICE. BUT BILLY SAYING IT'S REBOOTING, SO.

>> OKAY, >> OKAY. >> I WAS GOING TO SAY, IF YOU WANT, I CAN REACH OUT TO ONE OF MY STAFF TO SEND THE PRESENTATION AND MAYBE GET COPIES.

>> PERHAPS. >> WE HAVE AN ADVOCATE FOR ALL PAPER.

>> THE LIGHTS ON, THE WHITE LIGHT ON THE POWER BUTTON. IT APPEARS TO BE ON. BUT I DREW

THE LUCKY STRAW. >> GETTING THE PRESENTATION AND PAPER FORMAT.

>> YEAH. >> IT MIGHT BE THE BEST I. >> YEAH, IF IT'S THIS. DO WE

HAVE AN UPDATE? >> IT'S ONLY TWO. >> IT'S GOING TO TAKE BECAUSE WE WILL HAVE ALL THE PRESENTATIONS FOR THE REST OF THE MEETING TOO. SO.

>> OH YEAH, THAT'S TRUE. >> I'M EMAILING. >> HELLO.

>> THAT'S MINE. >> HAVE YOU EMAILED. >> IT TO ME.

>> OH, I. DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS GOING TO HAVE TO BE DONE. >> CAN YOU HAVE SOMEBODY EMAIL

IT TO ME? YES, ABSOLUTELY. IT'S NOT FLASH. YEAH. >> IT MIGHT BE COMING TO LIFE

NOW. >> WE'RE NOT SEEING IT HERE THOUGH. THAT ISSUE THAT COMES UP DOES NOT COME UP HERE. RIGHT. OKAY. IT'S COMING UP HERE. THANK YOU. YEAH. KRISTI. OKAY,

MOVING OGDEN. LET ME ACTUALLY. >> MOVE IT TO. >> THE COMPUTER.

>> IT'S THINKING ABOUT IT.

LET'S SEE IF IT DECIDES TO BE GOOD. NO. THERE WE GO. ALL RIGHT. SO THIS IS SOME BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON ITEM D WHICH IS REGARDING 243 IN MUNI CODE. SO THE BACKGROUND ON THIS IS THAT THE FACT ACT OF 2003 MADE IT MANDATORY FOR CUSTOMER BUSINESSES TO HAVE MEASURES IN PLACE TO LIMIT IDENTITY FRAUD AND SECURELY DISPOSE OF CONSUMER INFORMATION AND ENSURE ACCURACY FOR CREDIT REPORTING. MAY 1ST OF 2009 WAS THE DEADLINE FOR ALL BUSINESSES

[00:25:01]

TO HAVE FORMALIZED PROGRAMS FOR IDENTITY THEFT PROTECTION, AND THE CITY OF DENTON ADOPTED THEIR PROGRAM TO DETECT RED FLAGS FOR IDENTITY THEFT IN OCTOBER OF 2008. ONLINE INFORMATION SERVICES, WHICH IS THE COMPANY THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TODAY, WAS CONTRACTED TO ASSIST WITH DETECTING RED FLAGS IN NOVEMBER OF 2008, SO THEY HAVE BEEN IN PLACE SINCE NOVEMBER OF 2008. WE ADOPTED A DEPOSIT POLICY BASED ON THE RISK SCORES ASSOCIATED WITH THE SOFT CREDIT CHECK. ON NOVEMBER 16TH OF 2010. SO THE PROCESS IS. THE CUSTOMER MAKES AN APPLICATION FOR UTILITY DEPOSIT. WE TAKE THEIR SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER OR E, I N AND THEIR CONTACT INFORMATION, AND WE ENTER THAT INTO ONLINE UTILITY EXCHANGES WEBSITE. IT DOES A SOFT CREDIT CHECK AND VALIDATES THEIR PERSONAL INFORMATION SO THAT WE CAN SO THAT WE CAN VALIDATE THAT THE PERSON WHO IS IN FACT SETTING UP THAT CREDIT ACCOUNT SHOULD BE THE PERSON WHO IS WE'RE SPEAKING WITH. IT DOES NOT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE CUSTOMER'S CREDIT SCORE BECAUSE IT IS A SOFT CHECK AND THEY PROVIDE THAT TWO PIECES OF INFORMATION VALIDATION OF THE

IDENTITY OF THE CUSTOMER. >> BUT THE. >> IT'S GOING TO RESTART AGAIN.

>> DON'T HIT RESTART. >> NO, I'M GOING TO WE'RE JUST GOING TO IGNORE THE LITTLE

THING IN THE WINDOW THERE. >> FOR MINUTES. >> SO THE OTHER THING IT DOES IS IT GIVES US RISK ASSESSMENT. NOW FOR A BRAND NEW ACCOUNT. IF YOU'VE NEVER HAD SERVICES WITH THE CITY OF DENTON, WE ARE GOING TO LOOK AT THAT SOFT CREDIT CHECK WHERE GREEN IS LOW RISK. YELLOW IS A MEDIUM RISK, RED IS A HIGH RISK. AND THEN WE USE THAT TO DETERMINE

APPLICATION OF ZERO MONTH, ONE MONTH OR TWO MONTH DEPOSIT. >> AND THOSE ARE BASED ON LIKE CREDIT AGENCY CREDIT SCORES. CORRECT. AND SO THERE'S THERE'S A NUMBER THAT IS GREEN, A

NUMBER THAT IS YELLOW. >> AND YES, WE DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

WE JUST GET THE OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THEY FALL INTO LOW, MEDIUM OR HIGH RISK. SO THERE'S COMPLETE CONFIDENTIALITY AS FAR AS THAT CUSTOMER IS CONCERNED.

>> OKAY. SO SO IT IS OPAQUE TO, TO, TO THE CITY OF DENTON UTILITIES EVEN WHAT THE SCORE IS, THEY JUST CORRECT. HIGH MEDIUM LOW CORRECT. RED. YELLOW GREEN. OKAY.

>> AND IT'S FEDERAL LAW THAT'S REQUIRING US. >> THIS IS FEDERAL LAW THAT REQUIRES US TO AT LEAST BE ABLE TO VALIDATE THE IDENTITY AND LOOK FOR RED FLAGS FOR IDENTITY

THEFT. AND THAT IS WHAT THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THIS IS. >> ARE THERE ANY OTHER

QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? >> YEAH. >> SO IF WE DON'T KNOW WHAT SCORE IT SPIT BACK OUT TO GIVE US A GREEN, YELLOW OR RED INDICATOR. WHO CREATED THE

CRITERIA UNDER WHICH A GREEN, YELLOW OR RED CRITERIA? >> IT'S THE SAME CRITERIA THAT THE ON THE CREDIT AGENCIES USE. STANDARD CRITERIA FOR SOFT CREDIT CHECK.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR INTERNAL PURPOSES. SO ARE WE ALLOWED TO ADDRESS THIS COMMENT

FROM THE PUBLIC AT THIS TIME, OR IS THAT SEPARATE FROM. >> I THINK AS LONG AS IT STAYS

RELEVANT TO THE CREDIT CHECK. OKAY. AND. ET CETERA. >> AND ONE COMMENT THAT I'LL MAKE, WE WON'T BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THE SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS ACCOUNT, BUT, BUT IN GENERAL, WE CAN SPEAK TO KIND OF THE SCENARIO THAT THEY'VE BROUGHT UP.

>> OKAY. WELL, IN THIS SCENARIO, IT APPEARS THAT A CREDIT CHECK WAS PART OF THAT PROCESS OF

REINSTITUTING SERVICE. >> CREDIT CHECK IS NOT A PART OF REINSTITUTING SERVICE, NOT THROUGH ONLINE UTILITY EXCHANGE. THAT WOULD BE ADDRESSED SPECIFICALLY IN 264, WHICH OUTLINES THE CREDIT RATING SCORES FOR INTERNAL USE ONCE YOU'VE ESTABLISHED SERVICE AND WHEN YOU WOULD BE ASSESSED AN ADDITIONAL DEPOSIT. SO THIS PARTICULAR SERVICE IS ONLY USED

AT THE SETUP OF A NEW ACCOUNT. >> OKAY, SO THIS IS STRICTLY RELATED TO SETTING UP NEW

ACCOUNTS. >> CORRECT. >> WITH THE CITY UTILITIES.

>> CORRECT. >> OKAY. >> THANK YOU. SO THEN THAT'S REALLY NOT A CONNECTION TO THIS PARTICULAR COMMENT BECAUSE WE NEED THIS FOR NEW ACCOUNTS.

>> CORRECT. >> OKAY. >> SO A COUPLE QUESTIONS. THE INITIAL CREDIT CHECK, THE GREEN, YELLOW, RED THAT'S GOING TO BE USED. WE USE REGULAR CREDIT.

AND AND THAT WILL TELL YOU. WHAT TYPE OF CLIENT WE'RE DEALING WITH. IS THAT.

>> WHAT TYPE OF POTENTIAL FINANCIAL RISK THERE IS. >> OKAY. AND SO THEN IF I MAY,

[00:30:03]

LET'S SAY THEY PASS MAKE A YELLOW. >> OKAY.

>> THEN IF I UNDERSTAND WHAT LEE WAS SAYING, THEN AS THEY CREATE A HISTORY WITH THE CITY, THEY COULD REVERT TO A RED FOR LACK OF PAYMENTS, AND THEN THEY'LL HAVE TO GO THROUGH POSSIBLY SOMETHING OF A SIMILAR SITUATION THAT WE'RE WE'VE BEEN ASKED TO LOOK AT FROM OUR

PUBLIC. OR THEY COULD IMPROVE. >> CORRECT. >> SO IS THIS A DOES THIS D THIS PARTICULAR THING, DOES THIS HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE IN CORRELATION TO THE SECURITY BREACH THAT WE HAD A COUPLE MONTHS AGO. SO THAT'S STILL AN ONGOING CORRECTION

THAT WE'RE DOING. >> WE'VE ACTUALLY BEEN MOVED BACK TO A PROVIDER WITH WELLS.

IT IS A DIFFERENT PROVIDER. YES. AND HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFULLY VALIDATING AND TAKING PAYMENTS

FOR. >> AND THAT WAS THE IF WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT, MADAM ATTORNEY, BUT THAT WAS GOING FROM WE WENT FROM, LET'S SAY, CHASE TO WELLS OR WE CHANGED BANKS. AND THAT

KIND OF HELPED. ISN'T THAT MORE OR LESS WHAT WE DID? >> THAT'S CORRECT. WE WE

CHANGED TEMPORARILY, BUT WE'RE BACK WITH WELLS FARGO. >> OKAY. SO. OH. SHOULD WE JUST CAN WE DISCUSS ANYTHING? IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WE THINK ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR COMPLAINT

THAT'S BEEN MADE? >> I WOULD LIKE TO UNDER. I'M SORRY.

>> I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THIS DOESN'T REALLY RELATE TO HIS COMPLAINT. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE REQUIRED TO DO UNDER FEDERAL LAW FOR NEW CUSTOMERS COMING IN. AND IT REALLY DOESN'T TIE TO THAT PARTICULAR COMPLAINT. SO I WOULD ACTUALLY MOVE APPROVAL.

>> SO BEFORE WE GET TO THAT, I JUST HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS. SO I MEAN, I REMEMBER IN 2010, WHENEVER THE DEPOSIT POLICY CHANGED AND. IT WAS IT WAS VERY RELAXED BEFORE 2010, YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO HAVE MUCH IN THE WAY OF DEPOSIT CUT OFFS COULD TAKE UP TO 60 DAYS. AND THERE WAS A LONG HISTORY OF PEOPLE MOVING OUT OF TOWN AND LEAVING TWO MONTHS UNPAID ELECTRIC BILLS.

AND AT THE TIME THEY TALKED ABOUT HOW MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN BAD DEBT. BUT IT WAS LIKE OVER THE LAST 20 YEARS. SO AT SOME POINT WE PROBABLY SOME OF THAT OLD DEBT WAS NOT REALLY EVER GOING TO BE RECOVERABLE. ANYTHING OVER A COUPLE YEARS OLD. SO THE POLICY BECAME MUCH MORE AGGRESSIVE ON DISCONNECTS AND ON DEPOSITS. I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND. SO OBVIOUSLY, WE ARE REQUIRED BY FEDERAL LAW TO VERIFY THAT SOMEBODY IS NOT COMMITTING IDENTITY FRAUD,

RIGHT. >> WHICH TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITIES. YES.

>> AND THEN WE HAVE A POLICY AROUND DEPOSITS BEING REQUIRED OR NOT BASED ON 263 CHAPTER.

263264264. >> THAT'S FOR DEALING WITH THE. YEAH.

>> AND THAT'S WHERE WE GET. >> THE CUSTOMERS. >> EXISTING CUSTOMERS. SO THE

NEW CUSTOMERS IS 263. >> I'D HAVE. >> TO LOOK AT THIS. OKAY. SO THE NEW NEW CUSTOMERS HAVE THE RED YELLOW GREEN INDICATOR. CORRECT. THAT ISN'T A FEDERAL LAW REQUIREMENT. THAT'S US HAVING. YES. ONCE THEY BECOME AN EXISTING CUSTOMER, THEY BUILD THEIR OWN CREDIT HISTORY. I THINK IT'S IF YOU HAVE 12 MONTHS OF GOOD PAYMENT HISTORY, YOU KIND OF MOVE TO GREEN. SO YOU GET YOUR LIKE A LOT OF PEOPLE COMPLAIN ABOUT THE DEPOSIT BECAUSE IT CAN BE BIG, ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE MOVING INTO A NEW HOUSE AND YOU DON'T KNOW WHO USED WHAT, HOW AND YOU'RE PAYING BASED ON PREVIOUS TENANTS USE. BUT THEN AFTER 12 MONTHS, YOU GET A MULTI HUNDRED DOLLAR CREDIT ON YOUR BILL BECAUSE THE DEPOSIT COMES BACK TO YOU. OR IN THIS CASE, IN THE CASE IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT IS YOU MISS A, MISS A PAYMENT AND GET DISCONNECTED. AND NOW THAT YOU KIND OF IMMEDIATELY, BASICALLY DO YOU IMMEDIATELY GET MOVED TO THE DEPOSIT. YEAH. AND SO WHAT IS THE THERE'S A REFERENCE TO AN A TO E GRADE.

IS THAT PART OF. >> THAT'S PART OF 264? OKAY. AND JUST JUST TALKS ABOUT THE NUMBER OF INTERNAL CREDIT POINTS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO REACH EACH LEVEL AND WHAT THE

CONSEQUENCES FOR THAT. >> AND SO LIKE A LATE PAYMENT IS A LITTLE BIT OF A HIT. A FULL DISCONNECTION IS A MAJOR HIT REPEATED ON TIME PAYMENTS IS POSITIVE, CORRECT? YEAH.

OKAY. SO I DO FEEL LIKE THIS, THIS OVERLAPS WITH THIS, THIS CONSENT AGENDA ITEM. AND. I THINK THE, THE, THE ONEROUS NESS OF OUR DEPOSIT PROGRAM WAS TARGETING PEOPLE WHO MOVE OUT OF DENTON, WHO LEAVE AND CAN LEAVE DEBT. BECAUSE IF YOU MOVE TO A NEW METER, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY YOUR OLD METER. LIKE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY YOUR OLD BILLS EVENTUALLY.

AND SO IF YOU'RE A LONG TERM DEBT AND RESIDENT WHO'S STAYING HERE, MAYBE MOVING FROM ONE

[00:35:01]

RENTAL TO ANOTHER, IT'S GOING TO CATCH UP TO YOU. BUT PEOPLE WHO MOVE OUT OF TEXAS OR MOVE, YOU KNOW, OUT OF OUT OF DENTON, THOSE WERE WHAT THE DEPOSIT PROGRAM WAS REALLY AIMING AT.

AND I THINK IT STILL HAS THIS IMPACT WHERE IT DOES PREVENT A COLLEGE STUDENT WHO MOVES BACK TO WHEREVER FROM SKIPPING OUT ON A COUPLE MONTHS OF ELECTRIC BILL, BUT IT ALSO HAS A BIG IMPACT ON LOWER INCOME, PERMANENT CITIZENS OF DENTON WHO WHO GET BEHIND FOR A MONTH

AND NOW HAVE, YOU KNOW, TWO MONTHS OF DEPOSIT REQUIRED. >> AND SO I WILL JUST TO CLARIFY, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT WE CAN DO AND WILL DO WITH CUSTOMERS THAT FACE THIS, BECAUSE I DON'T DISAGREE. THAT CAN BE A VERY BIG HARDSHIP, BUT WE WILL, ONE, ALLOW THEM TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS ON THAT DEPOSIT TO BREAK THAT ACROSS TIME. WE ALSO OFFER OUR PREPAID PROGRAM, WHICH GIVES THEM A DEPOSIT FREE OPTION. AND IF THEY'RE BEING INCREASED FROM A ONE MONTH TO, SAY, A TWO MONTH DEPOSIT, THEY WOULD ACTUALLY RECEIVE THAT ONE MONTH DEPOSIT AS CREDIT ON THEIR NEW PREPAID ACCOUNT. SO THAT WOULD PREVENT THEM FROM EVER RECEIVING FEES.

EVEN IF THEY ARE INTERRUPTED, THEY WOULD JUST HAVE TO BRING THAT ACCOUNT BACK INTO THE POSITIVE. BUT WE DO GO TO GREAT LENGTHS TO MAKE SURE THAT CUSTOMERS DO UNDERSTAND THAT.

THAT IS A RISK WE PLACE ON EACH BILL THAT HAS A PAST DUE BALANCE, A MESSAGE THAT WARNS THEM THAT THEY MAY BE ASSESSED UP TO A TWO MONTH DEPOSIT FOR LATE PAYMENT HISTORIES, AND WE GIVE THEM BOTH THE DATE THAT THEY WOULD RECEIVE A LATE FEE AND THE DATE THE EARLIEST DATE THAT THEY COULD BE INTERRUPTED. SO WE ALSO MAKE TWO ADDITIONAL PHONE CALLS THROUGH OUR AUTOMATED DIALING SYSTEM TO TRY TO REACH THAT CUSTOMER. AND WE OFFER THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO SET UP REMINDERS IN THEIR ONLINE BILL PAY PORTAL VIA TEXT OR EMAIL. SO THERE ARE LOTS OF THINGS THAT WE DO TO TRY TO HELP EDUCATE AND MAKE SURE THAT THE CUSTOMERS ARE AWARE, AND WE ALSO OFFER A PAYMENT AGREEMENT IF THE CUSTOMER IS HAVING A DIFFICULT TIME PAYING THAT BILL, AND THEY'VE BEEN FAITHFUL IN KEEPING UP PAY ARRANGEMENTS THAT THEY'VE MADE WITH US IN THE PAST, THEY SIMPLY NEED TO GIVE US A CALL AND WE CAN WORK WITH THEM EITHER FOR A ONE MONTH ARRANGEMENT OR UP TO A THREE MONTH ARRANGEMENT TO HELP THEM PAY THAT OFF IN A LITTLE

MORE TIME WITHOUT THE RISK OF BEING INTERRUPTED. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT. RUNNING

THROUGH THE FULL PROGRAM. >> YOU'RE WELCOME. YEAH. >> MR. CHAIR, SO THAT LED TO ANOTHER QUESTION. I AGREE WITH SUSAN THAT THIS IS. THIS IS A GOVERNMENT ISSUE, BUT YET WE HAVE A CITIZEN THAT GOT CAUGHT UP WITH IT UNDER THE CITY'S GREEN, YELLOW, RED.

>> I WOULD SAY NO. >> OKAY. SHARE WITH ME. >> THIS PERSON WAS AN EXISTING CUSTOMER. DID NOT NEED TO GO THROUGH ONLINE THING THAT THEY'RE ASKING US TO APPROVE,

BECAUSE IT. >> WOULD BE I JUST DIDN'T SAY IT. RIGHT. BUT I AGREE WITH YOU

THERE. YES. >> SO THEY'RE I'M SEEING THEM AS NOT REALLY CONNECTED. IT'S

TWO DIFFERENT POLICIES. >> WELL, THEY'RE IN THE SYSTEM NOW. I'LL CALL AND THAT'S TERRIBLE. THEY'RE WITH THE CITY. AND THE CITY NOW HAS THEY'VE BEEN APPROVED. AND SO THEY NOW ARE SUBJECT TO THE GREEN YELLOW, RED DEPENDING ON THEIR PAYMENTS AND THAT. CORRECT.

>> WELL THE GREEN, YELLOW, RED IS ONLY THE INDICATOR THAT COMES BACK FROM ONLINE UTILITY

EXCHANGE INTERNAL. THERE ISN'T A. >> OH, THAT'S THE THAT'S THE ALPHABET. I APOLOGIZE. OKAY. SO. YOU'RE PAYMENT AGREEMENT AND WORKING WITH THEM AND SUCH IS THAT A DOCUMENT THAT IS IN WRITING THAT IS ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC? OR IS THIS SORT OF

A ARBITRARY KIND OF THIS IS WHAT WE WANT TO DO FOR YOU? >> WELL, ACTUALLY, WE BROUGHT THE PAY AGREEMENT ORDINANCE THROUGH THE PUBLIC UTILITY BOARD IN FEBRUARY, I BELIEVE.

>> I'M JUST TESTING YOU. I WANT TO KNOW. THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION.

>> WELL, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO COMMENT. AND I THINK YOU'RE CORRECT, SUSAN, THAT THIS PROBABLY IS A SEPARATE ISSUE, BUT I THINK IT WAS VERY INNOVATIVE OF THE CITIZEN TO BRING THAT TO OUR ATTENTION AS A WAY TO GET SOME RELIEF FROM HIS PROBLEMS. SO I HATS OFF TO

HIM AS TAKING A THOUGHTFUL. >> HE DID HIS HOMEWORK. >> YEAH.

>> WITH THAT, DO WE HAVE A MOTION? >> I THINK I ALREADY MOVED

APPROVAL. >> THANK YOU SUSAN. SORRY FOR. >> NO, NO, THAT'S GOOD

CONVERSATION. >> AND DO WE HAVE A SECOND TO OUR MOTION? WE HAVE A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? SIGN SAYING YOU'RE OPPOSED. WE MOTION CARRIES FIVE ONE. AND NOW WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM E. ON OUR

[E. PUB26-079 Consider recommending adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, a Texas home-rule municipal corporation, authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract with BRCT LLC, dba Black Rock Construction, for the construction of the Baker Offsite Sewer Project with the geographical limits as follows: Masch Branch Road from Hampton Road to Jim Crystal Road for the Capital Projects Department; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date (IFB 8833 - awarded to BRCT LLC, dba Black Rock Construction, in the not-to-exceed amount of $2,719,616.55).]

[00:40:05]

CONSENT AGENDA WITH. >> GOOD MORNING EVERYBODY. SHELDON GATEWOOD CAPITAL PROJECTS HAVE A SMALL PRESENTATION. I MAY PULL IT UP FOR YOU GUYS. SO I'M BRINGING IN THE NORTHERN WASH BRANCH. SANITARY SEWER ARE KNOWN AS BAKER OFFSITE SEWER FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AWARDED TO BLACKROCK CONSTRUCTION. THIS PROJECT OVERVIEW CONSISTS A LITTLE OVER 9000 LINEAR FEET OF SANITARY SEWER, RANGING FROM 18 TO 21 INCH SANITARY SEWER LINES WITH PRE FIBERGLASS MANHOLES, CONCRETE MANHOLES, STEEL ENCASEMENTS, GRAVEL DRIVES, RIPRAP AND TRENCH DAMS ALONG THROUGH THIS WHOLE ENTIRE VEIN ALL THE WAY TO THE END. SO A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND CENTER BETWEEN A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH ARM SQUARE, DENTON LLC AND BAKER FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS TO DELIVER THIS PROJECT. SO THEY HANDLED THE EASEMENT ACQUISITION ALONG WITH THE DESIGN. AND WE'RE JUST HANDLING THE CONSTRUCTION ASPECT OF THE PROJECT. SO WE WENT OUT FOR IFB FOR THIS. AND THESE ARE OUR THREE LOTUS LOWEST BIDDERS. WE HAVE BLACKROCK A LITTLE OVER 2.5 MILLION. MOUNTAIN CASCADE AROUND 2.4 MILLION. AND QUALITY EXCAVATION AROUND 3.5 MILLION. THERE WAS A TOTAL OF NINE PROPOSED BIDS FOR THIS PROJECT.

PROJECT SCHEDULE PLAN TO GO TO CITY COUNCIL TOMORROW. ISSUE NTP JUNE OF THIS YEAR. HAVE THE SAME PRE-CON MEETING THAT SAME MONTH AND BEGIN CONSTRUCTION THAT SAME MONTH AND FINISH IN QUARTER ONE OF 2027. SO THE CONTRACT AROUND 300 CONSTRUCTION WORKING DAYS. AND MY RECOMMENDATION IS FOR THE APPROVAL OF BLACKROCK CONSTRUCTION AND THE AMOUNT OF 2.5 $2,590,111. AND THE CONSTRUCTION FOR THE NORTH MARSH SEWER LINE PROJECT, AND NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF $2,719,616.55, WHICH IS 5% OF CONTINGENCY. SO THAT 5% CONTINGENCY IS $129,505.55. AND YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS SO FAR?

>> YES, I DO. IF THIS PROJECT IS TO BRING SEWER LINE TO THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OR PROJECT, WHAT ABOUT THE POWER WATER ROAD ACCESS? IS THERE MORE COMING ON THIS PROJECT.

>> THAT WILL BE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AS FAR AS DEVELOPING ROADS FOR THIS AREA, SINCE IT IS JUST GOING TO FEED THE DEVELOPMENT TRACK NORTH OF 380. BUT AS FAR AS OUR ROADS,

WATER IS NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE RIGHT NOW. >> DO WE KNOW THE REASON FOR

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PLOT OF LAND? >> IT WAS PART OF THE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN FOR THIS PROJECT. BUT AS FAR AS THE DEVELOPMENT, I'M NOT 100% SURE

WHAT ALL IS BEING DEVELOPED WITHIN THIS AREA. >> OKAY. IS THERE ANYONE HERE

WHO KNOWS WHAT'S GOING OUT THERE? >> NOW? WE'RE NOT WE'RE NOT AWARE. WE DON'T HAVE THE INFORMATION TODAY FOR YOU. WE CERTAINLY GET WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND SEE WHAT'S GOING OUT THERE. I KNOW THERE'S A NUMBER OF DEVELOPMENTS BEING PROPOSED IN THAT AREA THAT WE'VE BEEN APPROACHED BY, BUT BUT I DON'T KNOW WHERE IT SITS IN COMPARISON TO TO THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION, BUT WE CAN GET THAT BACK TO YOU.

>> CAN WE GO BACK TO THE THE BIDS. >> YES, MA'AM.

>> ARE YOU AT ALL CONCERNED ABOUT THE SPREAD? >> YES.

>> DID THEY MISS SOMETHING? >> NO, MA'AM. ACTUALLY, WE WENT THROUGH IT PRETTY THOROUGHLY.

AS FAR AS LOOKING AT EACH LINE ITEM, LOOKING AT THE QUANTITY TO MAKE SURE IT WAS MATCHING OF THE MASTER PLAN, BUT LOOKING AT THEIR ITEMS COMPARED TO EVERYBODY ELSE'S, WE NOTICE A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A LARGER LINE. SO 18 AND 21 INCH. THERE WAS AROUND A 200 $300,000 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EACH ITEM. AND AGAIN FOR THAT CASING AS WELL, THERE'S A 30 INCH AND 36 INCH CASING THAT WE NOTICE QUITE A MARGIN OF A DIFFERENCE AS WELL COMPARED TO EVERYBODY

ELSE. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> MR. CHAIR. TO DOVETAIL. ALL THREE OF THESE, THE PROPOSALS, THEY WERE THE CHEAPEST OF THE NINE THAT YOU RECEIVED. HAVE WE

USED BLACKROCK BEFORE? >> NO, SIR. >> HAVE WE USED MOUNTAIN BEFORE?

>> YES, SIR. >> HAVE WE USED QUALITY BEFORE? >> NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.

[00:45:02]

>> OKAY. SHARE WITH ME BECAUSE I KIND OF MISSED IT. THE PIPE SIZES. WHICH ONE ARE WE GOING WITH IS BLACK. IS BLACKROCK GOING WITH A SMALLER ONE WHERE MOUNTAIN WAS GOING WITH A LARGE

ONE? OR HAS THAT ANY CORRELATION TO ANY OF THAT? >> OH, THE PIPE SIZE IS JUST WITHIN THE PROJECT SCOPE. SO EVEN IF WE CHOSE MOUNTAIN CASCADE THEY HAVE TO USE BOTH

PIPE SIZES PER DESIGN. >> OKAY. WHEN YOU GET SOMETHING THIS SPREAD, DO YOU ASK ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR ARE YOU JUST USE THE SPREADSHEET TO SEE WHAT. AND AS

YOU SAID, DO A COMPARISON AND FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH IT. >> BESIDES THAT, AS FAR AS ASKING QUESTIONS, WE CALL THE REFERENCES AS WELL. I CALLED CITY OF FRISCO. THEY HAD A COUPLE GOOD THINGS TO SAY ABOUT THEM AS FAR AS THEM DOING QUALITY WORK, BUT LOOKING AT THE OF COURSE, THE STANDARD SCHEDULE VALUES, JUST MAKING SURE THE QUANTITIES MATCH AND

MAKE SURE NOTHING WAS EDITED OR CHANGED FOR THESE BIDS. >> AND FOR MY OWN EDIFICATION, THE CONTINGENCY PLAN, THE 5% THAT WOULD TAKE CARE OF ANY PROPOSED CHANGE ORDERS THAT

MIGHT POP UP. >> YES, SIR. >> THANK YOU.

>> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? I THINK WE'RE READY FOR A MOTION MOVE. APPROVAL. WE HAVE A MOTION SECOND AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES

[A. PUB26-081 Consider approval of the April 27, 2026 minutes.]

UNANIMOUSLY. WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. ITEM A IS APPROVAL OF THE APRIL 27TH, 2026 MINUTES. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? MR. AND MISS PARKER, SECONDS. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. OUR NEXT

[B. PUB26-068 Consider recommending adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, a Texas home-rule municipal corporation, authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract with Alderink Enterprises, Inc. dba CI Pavement, Diamond M Construction & Land Services LLC, and Solid Foundations Concrete LLC, for construction services for parking lot repair, reconstruction, and maintenance at City facilities for the Facilities Management Department; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date (RFQ 8983 - awarded to Alderink Enterprises, Inc. dba CI Pavement, Diamond M Construction & Land Services LLC, and Solid Foundations Concrete LLC, for one (1) year, with the option for four (4) additional one (1) year extensions, in the total five (5) year not-to-exceed amount of $17,808,000.00).]

ITEM IS ITEM B. I THINK WE HAVE A PRESENTATION HERE. >> GOOD MORNING. TOM KRAMER, DIRECTOR OF FACILITIES AND FLEET SERVICES. WE'RE HERE TO REQUEST PERMISSION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH OUR PREQUALIFIED VENDOR LIST FOR MUNICIPAL PARKING LOT REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE FOR THE FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. THE FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT MAINTAINS AND REPAIRS MUNICIPAL PARKING LOTS, WITH PARK STREETS AND UTILITIES ALSO ABLE TO USE THIS CONTRACT FOR ANY UPGRADES AND OTHER FLAT WORK NEEDS. THE AUGUST 2023 PARKING LOT ASSESSMENT AND ADA TRANSITION PLAN ADOPTED ON JANUARY 11TH, 2022, IDENTIFIED MULTIPLE MUNICIPAL PARKING AREAS REQUIRING REPAIR, MAINTENANCE OR REHABILITATION TO ENSURE SAFE AND EFFECTIVE FACILITY ACCESS. THE PROPOSED PREQUALIFIED LIST ENABLES JOB SPECIFIC CONTRACTOR SELECTION TO COMPLETE REQUIRED REPAIRS, MAINTAIN ADEQUATE ACCESSIBILITY FOR STAFF AND VISITORS, AND SUPPORT ADA UPGRADES IDENTIFIED IN THE TRANSITION PLAN. THE CITY WILL ONLY PAY FOR SERVICES RENDERED AND IS NOT OBLIGATED TO PAY THE FULL AMOUNT UNLESS ABSOLUTELY NEEDED. HERE, WE HAVE CONTRACT ESTIMATES AT THE TOP. THAT CONTRACT ESTIMATE IS BY YEAR DEVELOPED FROM OUR WORK PLAN ON THE ADA AND PARKING LOT ASSESSMENT NEEDS. AND AT THE BOTTOM, YOU'LL SEE THE CAPITAL FORECAST FOR THE DEPARTMENTS THAT MAY UTILIZE THIS CONTRACT, IDENTIFYING THERE'S ENOUGH FUNDING TO SUPPORT THIS CONTRACT SPEND IF NECESSARY. ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE, YOU'LL SEE SOME OF THE ADA UPGRADES WE'VE ALREADY COMPLETED. THIS IS AT THE CIVIC CENTER, ALLOWING THAT ADA APPROACH TO BE UPGRADED AND ADDITIONAL FLATWORK IN THE AREA AS WELL. WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR A ONE YEAR WITH FOUR ADDITIONAL ONE YEAR EXTENSIONS, THE TOTAL OF FIVE YEARS NOT TO EXCEED THE AMOUNT WITH C I PAVEMENT, DIAMOND CONSTRUCTION AND SOLID WASTE SOLID FOUNDATIONS, LLC FOR $17,808,000. ANY QUESTIONS?