Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Utilities topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Lawrence City approves $181,100 task order for well work, OKs utility lobby plan and three sewer bill adjustments

5470995 · June 10, 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

At a May 27 meeting, Lawrence City officials approved a $181,100 task order for work on Wells 11 and 7R and bridge rehabilitation, directed staff to pursue mass-notification quotes after a recent water main break, outlined plans to reopen the utility lobby on limited days and approved three sanitary-sewer bill adjustments totaling about $3,140.

Lawrence City officials on May 27 approved a task order not to exceed $181,100 for work on Wells 11 and 7R and related bridge rehabilitation, voted to accept three sanitary-sewer bill adjustments, and heard staff plans to reopen the utility office lobby on a limited schedule and to obtain vendor quotes for a mass-communication system after a recent water main break.

The approvals came during the meeting’s utility report and new-business items, where the council voted by voice for each motion. The measures affect water-system infrastructure, customer notification capabilities and several individual customer accounts.

The council approved “task order number 5” with BLN USA Incorporated (recorded in the meeting as associated with Aegis) for the work on Wells 11 and 7R and bridge rehabilitation, not to exceed $181,100. The motion carried by voice vote; the meeting record shows the board responded “aye” and the presiding official declared the motion carried. The transcript does not include a recorded roll-call or names tied to the individual yes votes.

Tom Spears, utility superintendent, presented the utility report and described the task-order scope as including well-house design, bidding-phase services, construction administration and part-time construction observation for the wells and the bridge. He said staff recommended approval.

Spears also said staff is pursuing at least two vendor options for a mass-communication system to improve notifications to utility customers after the city’s recent water main break and a resulting boil-water advisory. “He’ll come for you with a presentation, let you know what he recommends,” Spears said, referring to a utilities staff member who will present options once quotes are complete. The transcript indicates staff has received one bid with two pricing options (a per-use option and an unlimited option) and expects a second quote for comparison.

On lobby reopening, Spears said the city is finalizing a scope of work to improve lobby safety and that the planned initial opening will be three days per week: Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. “When the lobby is open it will be open for 3 days, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. We will accept payments by credit card, check, or money orders,” Spears said. He added that cash will not be accepted in the lobby for staff safety and to avoid the need for a courier service; cash payments will instead be accepted at a kiosk at the south end of the building.

The council approved three sanitary-sewer adjustments presented as individual motions: $591.62 for 7319 Richey Circle (noted as due to a failed check and described as a two-month adjustment with consumption now back to normal); $2,018.79 for 5310 Hammock Glen Drive (noted as due to a service-line leak under the slab that exceeded the 30-day limit and characterized as an extensive bill); and $530.11 for 9925 Hart Key Circle (also due to a service-line leak). Each adjustment was approved by voice vote; meeting minutes record “aye” and “motion carried” but do not record individual member votes.

Other routine business included approval of minutes from the May 27 regular meeting and approval of payment of claims, both carried by voice vote, and the acceptance of the superintendent’s utility report.

The meeting record shows no citizen comments on the utility items before adjournment.

Speakers and attributions in this article are drawn from the meeting transcript. Direct quotes are attributed to Tom Spears, the utility superintendent, who delivered the utility report and answered council questions.