Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves engineering work for Old Bethany water main, tables meter‑fee change
Summary
Bruceville‑Eddy authorized MRB Group to design Old Bethany water‑main improvements and approved a $95,250 professional services proposal; discussion about reactivation/tap fees and how to treat previously cut meters was extensive and the council voted to table fee changes pending further study.
The Bruceville‑Eddy City Council on Oct. 24 approved a professional‑services proposal from MRB Group to design and shepherd construction of a replacement and relocation of a failing 6‑inch water main on Old Bethany Road, and it tabled a separate policy decision on tap and meter reactivation fees.
The contract discussion focused on chronic leaks and storage limitations in the Old Bethany pressure plane; MRB Group summarized a phased plan that includes replacing the leaking 6‑inch main, boring under two creek crossings and rebuilding a flood‑prone pressure‑regulating‑valve (PRV) vault so the system can safely accept flow from an 8‑inch line that was disconnected when a bridge was replaced. MRB’s proposed professional services fee for design and bid‑phase support is $95,250; council members said the work should reduce water loss and free capacity for new meters.
Why it matters: Council members and staff said water loss and repeated pipe repairs have cost the city time and money and limit development. Engineers told the council the Old Bethany improvements would restore a second source to the pressure plane and create storage capacity for additional customer meters.
Council members pressed engineers on cost and schedule. MRB estimated construction on the order of several‑hundred thousand dollars (presenters referenced figures in the $400,000–$500,000 range as an early estimate), and staff said the project would go to bid. Several council members noted the city’s reserve balance and the need to preserve funds for other obligations; the council voted unanimously to accept MRB’s recommendation and proceed with the proposal.
Separately, the council spent more than an hour on city policy for meters that have been removed or deactivated. City engineering staff and MRB recommended pulling a meter and closing the valve at the meter rather than excavating and removing a tap at the main, citing risks of additional leaks and higher repair costs. Public‑works staff urged clarifying a reactivation fee or a reduced reactivation/feasibility charge when a tap remains in the ground. Members raised technical limits—particularly many 2‑inch mains that have a finite meter capacity—and suggested rules to preserve an orderly “line of succession” for reactivations. The council did not adopt a fee change; after discussion it voted to table the item and refer additional work to the infrastructure planning committee for follow‑up.
The next steps: Staff will return with more detailed cost estimates, meter‑feasibility rules and recommendations from the infrastructure planning committee before adopting a new reactivation or tap fee.
