Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water And Sewer topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bluff City aldermen review water and sewer budget as water-treatment bids go to advertisement
Summary
Bluff City aldermen examined water and sewer line items including a roughly $2.53 million figure tied to utility costs, reviewed a new advertisement for bids on the water‑treatment plant and discussed contingency planning for several weeks of plant downtime and the cost of purchasing water.
Bluff City Board of Aldermen members spent a large portion of their meeting reviewing the city’s water and sewer budgets, including a $2,530,000 figure referenced for the utility fund and the decision to advertise for bids on a water‑treatment plant project.
The issue matters because aldermen said the treatment plant work could leave the city buying water for multiple weeks, which would affect the utilities budget and could require later appropriations. Board members asked staff to develop estimates for the cost of purchasing water if the plant is offline and to show how the new contract and staffing items will flow through the water and sewer funds.
Board members and staff walked through line‑by‑line appropriations for the water treatment plant (fund code 52100 in the draft budget) and related sewer and wastewater accounts. Council discussion covered: which specific salaries are charged to the water and sewer funds versus general fund; an apparently advertised bid for the water‑treatment plant that staff said was prepared to run over the coming weekend; and a plan for staff to return with more precise estimates once construction bids are in.
A major operational concern was the financial impact if the water‑treatment plant is out of service. Aldermen and staff discussed planning scenarios ranging from two to four weeks of downtime and asked staff to calculate a per‑day purchased‑water cost and then scale that to 10 days, two weeks and four weeks to give the board contingency figures. The board identified Allen (staff member) as the person who would provide those calculations.
On recurring operating costs, the board reviewed estimates for purchased water (discussed in the draft as roughly $110,000), electricity and chemical costs. One account showed $28,716.27 already spent in the current fiscal year for chemicals; aldermen said those year‑to‑date figures mean the originally projected amounts will likely be exceeded and asked staff to adjust estimates accordingly.
Members also reviewed personnel counts for public works and wastewater distribution: the transcript shows discussion of a total of nine public‑works positions including one vacancy and specific names referenced by the board for payroll line allocation. The board discussed removing a retirement figure from multiple line items and confirmed that specific salaries (for example, the position listed as Terry) would be charged to the water fund.
Where possible, aldermen asked staff to bring back bid results and the per‑day cost of purchased water so the board could decide whether to reallocate funds, cut other items or increase revenue assumptions. No formal motion or vote on the water‑treatment contract or on a specific additional appropriation appears in the transcript; the board instead directed staff to produce the additional cost estimates and to return with bid information for a follow‑up meeting.
Aldermen also touched on nonutility budget items while on the same pages of the budget book — insurance, telephone, equipment rental and vehicle fuel — noting some lines use standard assumptions (for example, an indexed fuel rate) that the board may revisit when finalizing budget totals.
Next steps the board requested: (1) staff to calculate purchased‑water costs for scenarios from 10 days to four weeks and present those figures, (2) staff to return with bid results after the advertised bidding period and (3) staff to revise line items that are already trending over the year‑to‑date totals.
