Consultant warns Alice of aging water, wastewater and building systems; recommends investment‑grade audit

Richard Gibbons, lead consultant with e3, told the Alice City Council that the city’s water and wastewater plants, generators, motor control systems and multiple municipal buildings are showing signs of significant age and deterioration, and that the council should plan now rather than wait for failures.

Gibbons, who introduced engineer Vu Ponanovsky as the study’s technical lead, said the north and south wastewater plants showed degraded headworks, failing valves and deteriorating piping and concrete and that key treatment components such as clarifiers and blowers are underperforming. “Is that going to fail tomorrow? Probably not. Is it gonna fail sooner rather than later? Absolutely,” Gibbons said during his presentation.

Why it matters: City staff already perform repairs, Gibbons said, but an engineering firm’s high‑level review found systemic, long‑term issues that require more detailed study and budgeting. He recommended an “investment‑grade audit” — a three‑to‑four month, detailed assessment that ranks projects by urgency and cost so the council can build a phased capital improvement program (CIP).

Key recommendations and details: The presentation cited multiple near‑term risks: generators and motor control systems that are 18–19 years old; clarifiers and aerobic systems that are not functioning at design capacity; and lift stations and pumps approaching end of life. Lake Findlay’s low storage and the potential need to bypass it were discussed as a supply risk. Gibbons suggested the city consider a strategic 10– to 20‑year plan rather than a standard five‑year CIP.

Funding options: Gibbons described performance contracting and design‑build approaches under Texas statutes (he cited Texas local code 302) as ways to capture energy and operational savings to offset capital costs. He gave examples of replacing HVAC and lighting to reduce energy bills and using savings and meter upgrades to increase utility revenue.

Council reaction and next steps: City staff and council members asked about grading criteria, lifespan expectations and whether an audit could be completed quickly; Gibbons said the audit typically takes three to four months and would produce a ranked list of priorities. The consultant offered to perform a follow‑up investment‑grade audit and to work with city staff to identify grants, bonds, and performance‑contracting options. The council did not take a binding vote to hire the consultant at the meeting; staff presented the study and outlined next steps for prioritization and budgeting.

Ending: The consultant stressed early, strategic planning and phased investment to avoid the higher cost and public‑safety consequences of reactive repairs.