Cedar Breaks Repair Packages – Cost Information

[Ernesto Rios]

City Council,

At the last City Council meeting, staff was asked to prepare a comprehensive package outlining all known repairs at Cedar Breaks, in addition to the previously requested pump system replacement.

In the link below, you will find Package 1 and Package 2. The cost figures included in both packages are very preliminary estimates. While they are not final, staff believes they reasonably reflect current market conditions and are sufficiently accurate for planning purposes.

It is important to note that additional repairs may still be identified. Of the two options, Package 1 represents a more comprehensive approach to addressing the overall repairs and for planning purposes for the upcoming budget year.

Please feel free to reach out with any questions. If a site visit would be helpful, staff would be happy to coordinate one.

Package 1&2

Thank you

Ernesto Rios

 

[Paul Prince]

Thanks for this Ernesto. Let me summarize what I understand you to be saying...
In both Package 1 & Package 2 the cost for Pump Station is the same at ~$247K

For the rest of the work you have presented two possible options:

• "Package 2" where we completely outsource all the work. This adds another ~$275K for a total cost estimate of ~$522K (247+275)
• "Package 1" where we do as much of the work internally as feasible. The total budget request is ~$395K. (247+148)
  This is the staff recommended option.

For Pkg1, your last table has the total budget increase request. I can't interpret from this what the actual cost to the city is for this option, because I think you are indicating that some of the cost can be covered by existing M&O budget, and a lot of labor is using city employees. so the "cost" of this labor may be the alternative (standard) work those folks will not be doing. That tradeoff of "normal work" vs diverting some employees efforts onto this special task is (in my mind) purely a decision for you and the CM to make. i.e. if you feel you can continue to meet the regular work required while diverting some employee efforts to this, that is great and saves the city cash outlay at this time.

My last point is, please ensure that the budget change request to council includes how this will be paid for...

• Will expenses be reduced in some other areas of the Utility Fund budget?
• Will money be taken from UF reserves?
• Some of both?

 

[Norma Owen]

Thank you, Councilor Prince. I appreciate your summary of the differences between Package 1 and Package 2 and your question regarding how the Package 1 costs would be paid for.

Building on that discussion, and to fully understand the comparable differences between the two packages, I wanted to raise a few additional clarifying questions for Ernesto and the team ahead of tomorrow’s meeting.

1. Funding mechanics (building on Councilor Prince’s question):
   Building on Councilor Prince’s question about how Package 1 would be paid for, can staff outline the budget mechanics, including what portion is covered by existing Utility Fund O&M budgets, what portion requires new appropriation, and whether Utility Fund reserves would be impacted?
2. Schedule and duration comparison:
   Package 1 references an approximately 40-week timeline tied largely to pump lead time and parallel in-house work. If Package 2 were pursued, would staff expect the overall project duration to be materially shorter at a planning level, and if so, by roughly how much?
3. Execution risk / decision points:
   If staffing availability, competing priorities, or site conditions begin to affect schedule or workload under Package 1, at what point would staff recommend reassessing the approach (for example, shifting additional scope to contracted services), and how would that be communicated back to Council?
   

These questions are not intended to second-guess staff’s recommendation, but to help Council fully understand the tradeoffs between cash outlay, internal labor commitment, and schedule as we consider the two options.

Thank you again to staff for the thorough work and for making both packages available for review.

 

[Shane Saum]

City Council,

At the last City Council meeting, staff was asked to prepare a comprehensive package outlining all known repairs at Cedar Breaks, in addition to the previously requested pump system replacement.

In the link below, you will find Package 1 and Package 2. The cost figures included in both packages are very preliminary estimates. While they are not final, staff believes they reasonably reflect current market conditions and are sufficiently accurate for planning purposes.

It is important to note that additional repairs may still be identified. Of the two options, Package 1 represents a more comprehensive approach to addressing the overall repairs and for planning purposes for the upcoming budget year.

Please feel free to reach out with any questions. If a site visit would be helpful, staff would be happy to coordinate one.

Package 1&2

Thank you

Ernesto Rios

Thank you, Ernesto, and thank you to Councilor Prince and Councilor Owen for clearly framing the funding and tradeoff questions for Council.

Building on that discussion, and in agreement with the questions already raised by Councilors Prince and Owen regarding how any budget amendment would be funded, I share those same expectations and appreciate those questions being asked. In addition, I have a few further clarifying questions to help Council fully understand the regulatory and operational implications of these packages:

TCEQ compliance representation:

When staff responded to TCEQ regarding the identified violations related to SCADA functionality and pump reliability, which approach was represented as the corrective action plan? Was Package 1, Package 2, or a hybrid approach communicated to TCEQ, and does TCEQ have any expectations regarding timeline, sequencing, or scope that would materially favor one option over the other?

Internal labor opportunity cost:

For Package 1, can staff outline what preventive maintenance, capital maintenance, or routine wastewater system work would not be performed while Public Works staff are focused on trail clearing, mulching, and decoder installation at Cedar Breaks? Additionally, how is that deferred or displaced work being tracked, reprioritized, or covered?
Systemwide maintenance assurance
Given the scale and duration of the internal labor commitment under Package 1, what safeguards are in place to ensure that preventive maintenance across the rest of the wastewater and effluent system remains on schedule and that we are not unintentionally creating new risks or compliance issues elsewhere in the system?

O&M replenishment clarification:

Package 1 includes a $100,000 Operations and Maintenance replenishment request. Can staff clarify what specific expenses or prior uses this replenishment is intended to cover, why those costs could not be absorbed within existing O&M allocations, and how this request should be viewed in the context of other departments and systemwide needs that are also operating under constrained budgets?

These questions are intended to ensure Council has a clear understanding of compliance commitments, true operational impacts, and funding priorities as we evaluate a significant Utility Fund budget amendment.

Thank you again to staff for assembling both options and for the transparency provided.