Confirm the hydrant painting comparison (two proposals) and whether Edustrial did the work, since a second hydrant cleaning-and-repainting proposal from RNR Services ($29,295) was approved May 18, 2026.

Water Code §49.273(e) (three written bids for $25,000-$150,000; may apply); Good practice

The board action behind it

2026-01-19: Approved operator's report, including Inframark's proposal for Phase II of the Sanitary Televising Program for $81,044.40 and Edustrial Solutions' proposal for painting fire hydrants for $26,460.00

What else happened at that meeting

The Board accepted Director Carroll's resignation, effective December 27, 2025, elected Director Barrington Vice President and Director Harper-Veith Secretary, and agreed to appoint a resident to a vacant seat at the next meeting. It approved assignment of the tax assessor-collector contract from B&A to Assessments of the Southwest, Inc., effective February 1, 2026, and adopted a homestead exemption resolution and a resolution adding a penalty on delinquent personal property taxes. The Board approved $81,044.40 for Phase II of the sanitary sewer televising program and a $26,460.00 fire hydrant painting proposal from Edustrial Solutions. It called the May 2, 2026 directors election, which the attorney said would be an independent election because Harris County will not offer joint election services, and agreed that regular meetings falling on a federal holiday move to the following Monday.

Source: the meeting record › The approved minutes, p. 5 ›

The law and guidance in force on 2026-01-19

Competitive bidding: written bids from at least three bidders over $25,000 Water Code §49.273 §49.273: Same text in force then and now	Question	Televising ($81,044.40) was a single proposal from the operator itself; hydrant painting ($26,460) had two proposals (p.4-5). Whether §49.273 reaches inspection and maintenance work, as opposed to construction, materials or equipment, is not addressed; §49.278 exempts personal and professional services.
Form 1295 for contracts that need board action Gov't Code §2252.908 §2252.908: Same text in force then and now	Not shown in the record	No Form 1295 is mentioned for either contract.
Spending within the adopted budget Water Code §49.057(b) §49.057(b): Same text in force then and now	Shown	The operator said the televising cost was 'previously accounted for' in the operating budget (p.5).

Who's involved

Inframark, LLC (operator and vendor (Phase II sanitary televising))

Edustrial Solutions (vendor (fire hydrant painting))

Possible conflicts

Inframark, LLC: The operator presented, recommended and will perform the $81,044.40 televising; no competing quote is recorded. (minutes p.4-5)

Cost to the district

$107,504 Operating funds; the televising was said to be budgeted.

Why the board approved it

Recorded: “Inframark (Mackenzie Johnson) presented its own Phase II proposal and recommended Edustrial's hydrant proposal (p.4-5).”

Need for televising follows Phase I; the record shows no price comparison for the operator's own work, and only two hydrant proposals.