Item 3.3 on the January 28, 2014 city council consent agenda is unusual in that it requests permission to use a company to perform a service for three months. The item would give city staff the ability to extend the period to nine months.
Why such a short contract?
Reading the backup material for the agenda item it appears that El Paso Electric used to maintain and operate the street lights in El Paso and then bill the city for their services.
Evidently the deal was changed effective January 1, 2014 and now the electric company only bills the city for the energy provided to the street lights. The city has to maintain the equipment.
Is the short duration of the contract because the city wants to solicit bids for the service? Maybe the city wants to have the work done by city employees. The backup material does not tell us.
What is evident is that for the new company to gear up to provide the new service will cost money. If they only provide the service for 90 days that should make the short term price more expensive than if the city had taken care of this matter properly before January 1.
Did this problem sneak up on the city? I doubt it.
We deserve better
Brutus
elpasospeak 
Used to be that when a street light went out and it was reported, by the next day or two it was fixed. That must have been because the electric company was efficient. After reading this, I’m betting that the everyday citizen’s experience will change to: report it and wait, and wait, and wait …
LikeLike
So, who initiated the split? The city or El Paso Electric? If this was initiated by EPE, is this payback for the city council challenging EPE rate hikes a couple of years back? I thought current city management are supposed to be experts at public/private partnerships.
LikeLike