Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Works Paving topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Prattville awards paving and chip-seal contracts; resident raises annexation and GIS concerns
Summary
The City Council awarded a $1.339 million local paving contract and a $98,000 chip-seal contract and heard resident concerns that city GIS incorrectly shows portions of Ridge Trail and Ridge Terrace as inside city limits.
The Prattville City Council on May 6 awarded two contracts tied to street resurfacing and roadway maintenance and discussed the timing of planned work.
The council approved Resolution 6 awarding bid 025006 to Alexander Seal Coating and Striping Inc. for fiscal-year 2025 local paving at a cost not to exceed $1,339,855, funded from gas-tax budget lines. The council also approved Resolution 12 authorizing roadway maintenance by Charles E. Watts Inc. using chip-seal treatment for portions of Ridge Trail, Ridge Terrace, Johnson Street, Robinson Street, Reynolds Mill Road and Competition Street at a cost not to exceed $98,000, with funds appropriated from FY25 budget line items in engineering construction materials.
Mayor remarks during the meeting said Prattville had been awarded more than $338,000 in state funding from the Rebuild Alabama Act for resurfacing Northington Road and that, pending council approval on the paving and chip-seal agenda items, street paving and chip-seal work could begin around mid-June.
During public comment, resident David Jacques told the council that property along Ridge Trail and Ridge Terrace is listed in the city GIS as inside the corporate limits though he and others believe the parcels remain in the county. Jacques said neighbors do not want to be part of the city and that the GIS changes appeared recent. The mayor and staff responded that the city has a working agreement with Elmore County and that staff would review Jacques’s documentation; staff said it would follow up and that some historical records may go back to 1999.
The council approved both procurement items by voice/hand votes after motions and seconding; Resolution 6 was described in the meeting as a budgeted gas-tax fund expense and Resolution 12 relied on a procurement provision that allows public-works contracts under $100,000 to be let without competitive bids.
