Trustees approved a master agreement and three separate work orders with Olsen Engineering covering water utility relocation, pole-attachment management and inspection and construction administration for Well No. 7.
Master agreement and water-line relocation: The trust approved an Olsen Engineering master agreement for professional services and authorized the trust manager or designee to sign. The approval covers work-order assignments for water-line relocation connected to a State Highway 69A widening project; staff said the widening project has agreed to reimburse the trust for relocation costs. Staff described the water-line relocation work order as “to relocate those water lines” on Industrial Parkway/State Highway 69A near Buffalo Run Boulevard and said the work order would authorize the relocation work so utilities are not left in the highway footprint. The transcript contains a garbled numeric readout for the work-order limit; staff read an amount during the meeting but the audio transcript is unclear (see clarifying details).
Pole-attachment management package: Trustees also approved Work Order 25-2 with Olsen for a pole-attachment management package that will survey existing attachments, check loading and clearances, and produce an attachment-management manual. Staff told trustees the work will allow the trust to manage new and existing attachments, and that the agreement does not itself set the fee schedule for attachments; a separate fee schedule will be developed and presented to trustees. The staff member said that most primary poles are already mapped in the trust’s GIS but the service will assess proposed attachments for loading, sag and clearances and that third parties would be responsible for construction costs required to obtain the necessary clearances.
Well No. 7 inspection and construction administration: The trust authorized work/authorization 32025 with Olsen Engineering for construction administration and inspection related to Well No. 7 and disinfection, not to exceed $145,700, and authorized the trust manager or designee to sign. Staff described the $145,700 figure as a worst-case estimate and said there may be opportunities to reduce the inspection cost by using existing inspection resources.
Votes and procedure: Motions to approve the master agreement and work orders were made and seconded; roll-call/voice votes were recorded as “Aye” by trustees present (transcript records Eastep, Dunkel/Tunkel, Jones, Barnes and Parker in different items). The agreements were approved in the meeting.
Why it matters: The projects affect water service routing, permitting obligations tied to a state highway widening, and the trust’s ability to regulate pole attachments — which has implications for future fiber and telecom attachments and for utility staff safety.
Next steps and caveats: Staff will proceed under the authorized agreements and will bring a separate fee schedule for pole attachments back to trustees. The transcript contains some inconsistent spellings of trustee names and a garbled numeric reading for one work order; the article notes those uncertainties and recommends verifying contract dollar amounts in the formal meeting packet or contract documents.