Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Emergency Management topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

City names primary and secondary disaster-debris contractors; two-and-a-half-year primary contract approved

5520205 · August 1, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The council awarded a primary disaster debris removal contract to Serious Environmental and designated DRC Emergency Services LLC as the secondary contractor under two resolutions; staff said the contract term is 2½ years to align future renewals with spring.

The El Campo City Council approved two resolutions on July 28 to name disaster-debris contractors: Serious Environmental was selected as the primary contractor and DRC Emergency Services LLC as the secondary. City staff said the city reissued a request for proposals after exhausting prior renewal limits and that six responses were evaluated by a three-person committee. The committee considered equipment availability, similar contracts, and other factors; staff said the ranking placed Serious Environmental first and DRC second. "In the end, the ranking came out with Serious on top and DRC second," staff said. Staff described the primary contract as an initial 2½-year agreement intended to move the renewal window out of hurricane season into spring for future solicitations. A council member moved to approve Resolution R2025-36 (primary contract) and subsequent Resolution R2025-37 (secondary contract). Both motions were seconded and approved by voice vote during the meeting. Why this matters: Naming primary and backup debris-removal contractors establishes prearranged vendors who can be mobilized after storms to remove debris; the contract-term timing is intended to simplify future procurement windows. The council packet included the committee’s evaluation and staff’s recommendation; the meeting record did not include a detailed bid tabulation in the public discussion. Additional context from staff: When asked whether rankings were blind, staff said evaluators knew the proposers’ identities during scoring. No financial totals for the contracts were discussed on the council floor during the public meeting minutes recorded in the transcript.