| Pecan Grove Municipal Utility District (MUD) directors voted Wednesday to interview three utility operating companies of those submitting proposals.
The board will interview the firms of Environmental Development Partners, H2O Consulting and ECO Resources, Inc.
At the board's December meeting, ECO Resources, Inc., current operator of the utility system for the district, presented a letter to the board agreeing to amend its existing contract termination date with the district so that the MUD board could receive proposals for a new operator. At the board's meeting in January, the directors voted to amend the ECO contract to expire June 30.
The ECO agreement to amend the contract came after directors voted in November to consider the termination of the existing contract with ECO in light of an incident in which an ECO employee took monies from water district accounts.
No funds were taken from any Pecan Grove MUD accounts, but at least one Fort Bend MUD, First Colony MUD No. 9, has sued Jane Elaine Trentham of Missouri City, for taking $25,000 in funds from that district. Trentham is a former ECO employee.
Proposals for operators were to be received by Friday, Feb. 24.
Directors Charles Bertrand and Buddy Kluppel said they were disappointed in some of the proposals received by the board, but director Holly Zarate said "we've got a consultant that puts out a pretty package, but when you look below the surface you have a Cadillac body and a Volkswagen motor."
Director Steve Crow said there are pros and cons to both large and small operating firms. He said the larger firms offer more resources, but the smaller companies give more attention.
Kluppel said the board is not interviewing new operating companies to save money, "but to get an operating company that we can trust."
Crow said that in changing companies "the failings that we have with ECO might not be there, but there will be other failings."
Board president Joe Taylor said one of the complaints is the way the district office is staffed. He said an ECO employee offices there, but has responsibilities in other districts. Taylor did say that any of the six firms submitting proposals could satisfy the needs of the district and earn the directors' trust. He said the firms not chosen for interview still could be considered at a later time.
Taylor said each firm would get 10 minutes of presentation time, and then would answer questions for 20 minutes. The board would discuss each firm between interviews with the other companies, allocating a hour for each company.
Taylor suggested that each firm bring no more than four employees, with three being a principal, the person who would manage the Pecan Grove MUD facilities, and the company's customer service manager.
In other business the board reviewed the contract with the firm of Allen Boone Humphries Robinson with Lynne Humphries, partner with the firm.
Bertrand said he appreciated the responsiveness of the firm's employees, although he said one work product from one attorney did not meet his expectations.
Zarate praised the firm for help in negotiations with the country club, but said the board's meeting minutes were still too detailed. Zarate also said Humphries is very responsive to directors, even when on vacation.
Crow said he enjoyed the relationship with the firm, but discussed using a consent agenda and grouping action items.
Kluppel said the thing that Humphries brings is leadership, but said that is lacking in some associates. Humphries responded that a third, younger attorney would be trained on Pecan Grove MUD matters, in addition to the two partners which work on the district's accounts. Kluppel also said he appreciates "your candor" when issues are out of the firm's area of expertise and those issues are referred to other attorneys.
Taylor said he appreciates the firm's involvement in water district issues and legislation. "We need eyes and ears on the ground for things we can't do ourselves," Taylor said.
In other business, the board heard a report from Zarate which said some of the district's commercial accounts have been improperly charged for water usage.
|
