My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12 City Council(01/12/04)
City-of-Paris
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2001-2010
>
2004
>
02 - February
>
2004-02-09
>
12 City Council(01/12/04)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/8/2005 11:23:55 AM
Creation date
2/10/2004 1:15:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
AGENDA
Item Number
12
AGENDA - Type
MINUTES
Description
City Council
AGENDA - Date
1/12/2004
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Regular City Council Meeting <br />January 12,2004 <br />Page 12 <br /> <br />Mr. Mussullam indicated if they needed to go beyond the 32.3 MGD reliable <br />capacity, then that would be the only way to gain additional filtration capacity. <br /> <br />Mr. Mussullam related that the probable project costs were about $3.35 million <br />for Phase 1, which adds up to 30 cents a gallon, $900,000 for Phase 2, and <br />about $1.75 million for Phase 3. These do not include bringing the plant to a <br />capacity over 33 or 34 MGD. Mr. Mussullam indicated that they could <br />possibly see a 20% savings in chemical costs because of these improvements. <br /> <br />Mr. Mussullam said that if everyone wanted the maximum gallons of water <br />stated in their contracts and the City of Paris needed its maximum, the plant <br />could not meet these needs safely. <br /> <br />Mayor Fendley asked the Council to go to item 18, which was discussion and <br />direction on privatization since the consultants were in the council meeting. <br />Mayor Fendley asked what the consultants exposure to privatization had been <br />and if it had been good or bad. <br /> <br />Robert Slide of Freese and Nichols said privatization had been in Texas for a <br />long time. Mr. Slide explained that privatization meant contract operations to <br />run the water plant. He indicated the City of Pampa had been privatized longer <br />than anyone else in Texas. He also mentioned Georgetown, the City of <br />Houston, which was privatized and has gone back to its own employees, the <br />City of Laredo, and the City of Atlanta, who has cancelled it contract. He <br />indicated there has been mixed results from privatization. He also mentioned <br />that a lot of cities had good results from privatization of their solid waste <br />collection and disposal. <br /> <br />Mr. Slide said there were two major issues in contract for service on a water <br />systems, the cost in operation and how much control the city wanted to <br />maintain <br />their systems. He did say the State had approved privatization operations in <br />Texas. Three main areas Mr. Slide felt that a privatization company usually <br />focuses on, personnel to reduce salary costs, chemical cost savings, and energy <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.