Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Utility Locating Contract topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board authorizes up to $2 million annual contract with USIC for sewer-locating services

3279424 · April 18, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After public comment and extended questioning about vendor selection and in‑house alternatives, the Johnson County Board of Commissioners approved a one‑year contract (with four one‑year renewal options) with USIC Locating Services LLC for utility locating in the consolidated main sewer district.

The Johnson County Board of County Commissioners on April 17 approved a contract authorizing up to $2,000,000 per year with USIC Locating Services LLC to provide utility‑locating services for the county’s consolidated main sewer district. Commissioner Allenbrand moved the contract approval; Commissioner Myers seconded the motion. The roll call vote was 5 in favor, 1 opposed.

The decision followed public comment questioning the procurement timeline and staff presentations on technical and cost tradeoffs. Ben Hobert, a registered public commenter, said the request-for-proposal timeline — RFP issued July 15, responses received Aug. 8 — left “only 20 days left till contract expiration,” which he said limited the board’s discretionary authority and merited further review. Hobert also asked how many firms responded and whether complaints or delays had been recorded.

Susan Pekarek, who presented the item as Johnson County Wastewater project manager, told commissioners USIC has held the county contract for five years and that staff and the vendor had worked together on training because locating sanitary sewers “is not as simple as some of the other underground utilities.” Pekarek said the county has tracked performance across more than 100,000 locate tickets and identified six instances where a sewer hit was not located. “So I would just offer that we have experience with them… and we are recommending that we move forward with them for this particular contract,” she said.

Staff described the cost‑vs‑risk analysis of bringing the work in house: an updated analysis estimated about 15.5 full‑time equivalents (FTEs) would be needed plus vehicles, locating equipment and software, and additional liability assessment. Pekarek noted a contractor currently accepts the locating liability under contract; taking the work in house would shift and require the county to fully evaluate that risk.

Robin Lines, purchasing manager, said procurement followed the board’s competitive procurement policy: the evaluation committee ranked firms, staff negotiated with the top‑ranked firm, and when negotiations reached impasse the county proceeded to negotiate with the next highest ranked proposer. Lines said two firms completed proposals; two additional firms viewed the solicitation but did not complete submissions.

Commissioner Ashcraft and other commissioners pressed staff on possible hybrid approaches (partial in‑house capacity or split contracts), cooperative arrangements with other utilities, and whether the county had engaged the market sufficiently. Staff said some utilities do a hybrid (in‑house for routine work, contractors for emergencies) but that emergency locates often cost more; coordinating multiple vendors through Kansas 1 Call would add operational complexity and could increase risk.

The approved motion: authorize a contract with USIC Locating Services LLC for utility locating services within the consolidated main sewer district at a cost not to exceed $2,000,000 for a one‑year term, with the option to renew annually for four additional one‑year terms under RFP No. 2024‑046. The vote was: Commissioner Fast — yes; Commissioner Myers — yes; Commissioner Brewer — yes; Commissioner Ashcraft — no; Commissioner Allenbrand — yes; Chair Mike Kelly — yes.

Commission discussion emphasized safety and the potential high cost of failed locates (staff cited a historical range of roughly $15,000 to $40,000 to repair damage from strikes), the limited vendor market, and the tradeoffs of in‑house staffing costs versus contracted liability coverage.

The contract item was the only formal action on the agenda that generated extended debate; commissioners directed staff to continue engagement with utilities and to monitor performance should the vendor contract proceed.