City staff said they signed paperwork to begin Phase 2 engineering with HDR to design a pipeline and move the city closer to installing pump-station equipment and a larger water treatment plant, and described why the work is necessary under Texas Water Development Board requirements. The remarks came during a staff presentation on city water infrastructure.

Staff member, City staff, said engineers evaluated three options for the pump station after structural review ruled out a simple rehabilitation. "Option 1 was rehabbing. Once the structural people got involved, that is not possible," the staff member said, and described two alternate designs that reuse much of the existing structure. The staff member said the long-term planning assumes space for five pumps, but the immediate construction will provide the concrete shell and allow pumps to be added later: "We have to pour the concrete tomorrow, but we don't have to put expensive pumps in tomorrow."

The staff member described the project as modular, comparing the approach to previous treatment-plant planning: "Can we grow it? How do we do this? Same thought process has been used here. What do we need to build for 40 years from now, and what do we need to install for 5 years from now?" The presentation noted that assessments of pumping capacity and needs are complete and that the district contracted HDR to perform Phase 2 engineering, which will include pipeline design, hydraulics, topography and geology studies to produce construction specifications.

On the treatment plant, the staff member said phase 1 of the Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) is underway and described the current plant layout and technology as functional. The presenter said the ACR team reviewed prior work by John Heinemann and rolled the same capacity data into the new sizing and construction planning for the treatment plant. The presenter explained this analysis is required by the Texas Water Development Board under the State Revolving Fund (SRF) program, and that completing the engineering now shortens the time between receiving SRF funding and putting equipment into service.

The staff member identified consultants involved: Corey Shockley, PE, of HDR; John Heinemann, PE, of HDR Dallas; Scott McKinnon; and David Morgan. The presenter also said the district is paying for the engineering work while the city provided funds to keep the engineering moving.

No formal motion or council vote was reported in the presentation. The only explicit action described was the staff member signing paperwork to start Phase 2 engineering. Staff framed the next steps as continuing the PER and completing the Phase 2 design so the city will be ready to install equipment once SRF funding becomes available.

Discussion (options and trade-offs), staff direction (initiation of Phase 2 engineering), and next steps (continue PER, complete pipeline design) were all described during the presentation; no formal decision or vote on the project was recorded in the transcript provided.

The city presentation did not provide a meeting date, exact contract values, or a timetable for SRF funding approval in the transcript. Those items were described as pending or tied to the SRF process and were therefore not specified.