Tuscaloosa City Council approves pump‑station extension, fire‑station hood cleaning and a flood‑mitigation property buyout; tables storefront program

The Tuscaloosa City Council on Wednesday approved a 150‑day time extension for work on the Ed Love Raw Water Pump Station Improvement Project, awarded a $5,000 maintenance contract for hood cleaning at two fire stations, and approved the purchase of Lot 10 in the Edgemoor Subdivision as part of a flood‑mitigation buyout program. The council also voted to table recommendations for the Face‑Lift Storefront Improvement Program until its next meeting on March 11.

The extension affects Change Order No. 1 to the construction contract with Mark Johnson Construction for work at the city’s raw water pump station that draws water from the city reservoirs and sends it to the Ed Love treatment facility. A staff presenter said the project has been under way for a couple of years and that delays in pump equipment delivery led the city to request an additional 150 calendar days. “...our project has been going on for a couple of years now...the pumps for that pump station has a significant delay, and we're here to ask for the time extension of a hundred and 50 days,” the staff member said.

Why it matters: the pump station is a key node that moves raw water from city reservoirs to the treatment plant; equipment delays pushed the contractor to seek more time rather than additional fees or scope changes, staff said.

Council members then approved a minor public‑works contract with ProClean for hood cleaning at Fire Station 1 and Fire Station 12. The contract amount presented to the council was $5,000 and will be paid from the general fund maintenance line for fire services, a staff member said.

The council also approved the purchase of Lot 10 in Edgemoor Subdivision for $10,000 as a protected acquisition under the city’s flood‑mitigation/drainage buyout program. Staff described the parcel as being retained in its natural state for drainage mitigation and said acquiring the lot would prevent future development that might raise finished‑floor elevations in the area. A staff member explained that, if not purchased, a future buyer would need to place fill to meet required elevation standards.

On the Face‑Lift Storefront Improvement Program, members received additional background materials and a list of about 13 recommendations submitted by council members. The council president was absent; a motion to table the program recommendations until the March 11 meeting carried. Staff noted the program’s current recommended total is about $237,650 in awards or recommendations.

Votes at a glance

• Change Order No. 1 — Mark Johnson Construction, Ed Love Raw Water Pump Station Improvement Project: motion to approve a 150‑day extension; moved and seconded; outcome: approved (voice vote; "aye" recorded). Notes: delay attributed to pump equipment delivery; no fee increase reported.

• Minor public‑works contract — ProClean, hood cleaning for Fire Station 1 and Fire Station 12: amount $5,000; funding from general fund maintenance for fire; moved and seconded; outcome: approved (voice vote; "aye" recorded).

• Property purchase — Lot 10, Edgemoor Subdivision: purchase deposit $10,000 for armory drainage/flood‑mitigation buyout; moved and seconded; outcome: approved (voice vote; "aye" recorded). Notes: staff said the lot will be kept in a natural state for drainage mitigation.

• Face‑Lift Storefront Improvement Program: motion to table pending additional information and distribution of application/recommendation lists; moved and seconded; outcome: tabled to March 11 (voice vote; "aye" recorded). Staff reported roughly $237,650 in current recommendations and 13 councilmember suggestions to review.

Meeting business concluded with a reminder about the upcoming city election and adjournment.

Sources and limitations: The article is based solely on the council meeting transcript. Several speakers were not identified by full name in the record; where the transcript did not provide a speaker’s full name, the article attributes remarks to a generic staff member or to the chair as indicated in the meeting record. Exact roll‑call vote counts and named movers/seconders were not recorded in the transcript; the minutes show voice votes with "aye" recorded for the listed actions.