Denton PUB approves contract amendment to redesign Pecan Creek plant to 30 MGD

The Denton Public Utility Board on Monday approved an amendment to the city’s design contract with Kimley‑Horn to expand design and construction‑phase services for the Pecan Creek Water Reclamation Plant to a 30 million‑gallon‑per‑day (MGD) facility.

Jason Donnell, Water Utilities project manager, told the board the existing plant was built in 1961 and has a capacity of about 21,000,000 gallons per day and is “currently operating up to 85% of its capacity.” He said state capacity thresholds require design work once a plant reaches roughly 75% of capacity and construction planning as it nears 90%, and that Denton reached those triggers in 2023.

The board’s approval authorizes a first amendment to the city’s professional services agreement with Kimley‑Horn to add design work, an additional 25‑MGD membrane bioreactor (MBR) line (bringing total MBR capacity to 30 MGD), biological nutrient removal, aerobic digesters, a non‑potable reuse system, chemical feed, emergency generators, contract administration and environmental assessment services. Donnell summarized the amendment cost on the record as approximately $33,792,510 for those added services and administration.

Why it mattered: staff presented a multi‑option cost comparison that weighed rehabbing the existing facility versus building a new plant sized at 30 MGD. Donnell said the consultant’s analysis estimated rehabilitating and expanding the existing plant would require substantial interim work and later replacement of aged infrastructure, producing an estimated total cost of about $636,700,000 with completion around July 2034. Rebuilding a new 30‑MGD plant, by contrast, was presented as an estimated $503.8 million program with a projected completion near December 2031 — roughly two and a half years earlier.

Donnell said the rehabilitation scenario included roughly $82.5 million just to extend life of existing structures, plus an estimated $389.5 million to expand by 5 MGD and additional connection costs. The presentation framed the new‑plant option as carrying lower lifecycle cost and earlier delivery; Donnell told the board staff are “fairly confident we’re within 10%” of the presented estimates but cautioned long‑range construction forecasting is difficult.

Board members asked about footprint and site logistics. Donnell said the new treatment portion would occupy roughly 30 acres just south of the current treatment footprint (the existing treatment portion is a little over 40 acres within a larger 180‑acre plant property). He said the old facility would be demolished later and the city already owns the surrounding property needed for the new plant and enlarged equalization basins.

Board members also asked about asset life. Donnell said the new plant shell is being planned for a 50‑year life and equipment life estimates are about 30 years, subject to maintenance and replacement schedules.

The board voted unanimously to approve the amendment after a motion and second; no roll‑call vote with individual tallies was recorded in the meeting minutes presented to the board.

What’s next: the amendment adds design and early construction‑phase support; staff and the consultant will continue the design process and pursue required permitting and financing steps reported in the board presentation. The board record shows the item passed unanimously and the meeting proceeded to subsequent budget items.