Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pipeline Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City staff recommends approval of Fred Gavango Metro Gas pipeline permit with conditions
Summary
City staff presented a permit for the Fred Gavango Metro Gas pipeline, describing a roughly 1.6-mile line (0.6 miles in city limits) and recommending approval with conditions such as water-department sign-off, inspector oversight and GPS coordinates on completion; staff will follow up on a disputed September deadline.
City staff presented a permit application for the Fred Gavango Metro Gas pipeline, saying the line would link a Permian Resources well on the north side of East Green Street with a compressor station on the south side and run about 1.6 miles, of which approximately 0.6 miles would lie inside city limits.
The staff presenter said the proposal calls for the pipeline to be buried at a minimum depth of 48 inches and to operate at an average pressure of 80 PSI, not to exceed 285 PSI. "Pipeline is approximately 1.6 miles in length," the presenter stated. The presenter also said the pipeline would cross privately owned property and would not cross any city-owned land.
The city had retained a qualified inspector to review the application and the presenter said that inspector recommended approval of the permit application "with certain expressed conditions" included in the technical and legal report. Those conditions explicitly included final approval and sign-off by the city water department superintendent for any municipal waterline crossings, maintaining communications with the city's appointed inspector during construction, and submission of GPS coordinates upon completion of installation.
Clayton Bradley, introduced earlier as the retained inspector, addressed council questions about a September deadline referenced in the application. Bradley said city-issued permits are typically valid for one year and that he would check whether the September date was a city deadline or a state-level deadline; he also said he had verified that state permits had been issued. On the specific September date he said, "this was just a typo," and explained that the operator withdrew and resubmitted its application while replanning the infrastructure location.
Council was presented with three options for the application: approve with the expressed conditions recommended by the inspector, approve with additional or different conditions, or deny the permit. The excerpted transcript ends after questions and clarification; no final council action on this specific permit appears in the provided segments.
Next steps: staff and the retained inspector will follow up to confirm the deadline source and report back to council before any final action is recorded.
