Fairhope Council reviews waterfront drainage change order, project selections and several contract clarifications

City staff used the April 8 work session to brief the council on several capital projects, contract clarifications and subscription items the council will consider at its regular meeting, and to request direction on a handful of items that need more information before final approval.

Richard Johnson (city staff) described a recommended change order related to the Working Waterfront project: during construction crews discovered a corroded corrugated metal drainage conduit that runs from the bluff to the seawall and contributes to sinkhole and erosion risk. Johnson said engineers prepared repair plans and the city sought contractor pricing; staff recommended completing the drainage repairs now rather than returning later for an isolated repair.

“It would be bad decision making to not fix this while we have a contractor there,” Johnson told council members, citing a prior, similar project that cost about $275,000 and noting the overall waterfront project budget is in the millions.

Nut graf: The change-order request was framed as an infrastructure necessity tied to active construction; staff argued that doing the work now reduces future costs and preserves recent investments in the seawall and park improvements.

City staff also recommended awarding an environmental/NEPA contract (not-to-exceed, vendor: Volkert) to clear HUD-related environmental and cultural requirements for an airport grant-funded project. Staff said the NEPA scope includes archaeological and cultural-resource review and that the city must complete that review before spending grant proceeds.

The council heard a recommendation to select Neil Schafer to perform a Twin Beach corridor safety study funded mostly by an MPO/TAP grant (roughly $40,000 total; 80% MPO, 20% city share). The study will examine pedestrian and traffic safety near schools and high-use areas along the corridor.

Several procurement and contract items prompted additional council questions:

- A proposed award for sidewalk work to McLaughlin was discussed; the resolution language lists a $17,050 figure that staff said represented the vendor’s labor portion while materials would be supplied by the city, bringing total project materials and labor closer to $42,000. Councilors asked staff to revise the resolution language to remove ambiguity about which costs are included and which will be city‑provided.

- An item to subscribe to a weather‑alert service for parks and complexes carried a quoted subscription cost of $3,000 per year for the additional sites; staff clarified the cost and how it fits the current budget.

- A proposed monthly charge from Mediacom to provide cable to exercise equipment and TVs in the recreation center prompted a council request to pull that item so the city’s IT consultant can review alternatives (streaming options, renegotiation, or franchise considerations).

- IT and police staff asked for immediate expansion of storage on the Genetec video server that houses camera footage used by corrections and public safety. Council members asked staff to document the funding source for that unbudgeted $32,000 request (staff said it would come from the corrections fund).

- Council members asked questions about a proposed budget-software subscription that includes an initial period and a contractual annual escalator (staff described an initial price and a built-in annual increase intended as a subscription escalator). Several councilors asked staff to track subscription escalators and include renewal mechanisms in future reviews.

Staff also updated council on ongoing projects: the South Beach Park seawall is complete in its south segment, preconstruction meetings are scheduled for White Avenue Park improvements, Flying Creek Nature Preserve work is advancing toward a summer opening, and the city awaits final ALDOT comments on the sidewalk project connecting 98 to 78.

Ending: Council members asked staff to return with clarified resolution language where figures were ambiguous, to pull the Mediacom item for IT review and to document funding sources for unbudgeted items; staff said they would follow up and present revised language at the regular meeting.