Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Talladega Council rejects $245,701 contract for 'down road' remediation at dam access
Summary
The Talladega City Council voted 3-2 to reject a $245,701 agreement with Mike Morgan Industrial LLC to remediate a road used primarily by the water department near the Talladega Creek Dam, after council members questioned the cost and scope.
The Talladega City Council voted 3-2 to reject an agreement with Mike Morgan Industrial, LLC to remediate a road used by the water department near the Talladega Creek Dam.
Council members debated the proposal, which staff described as work to clear brush, widen and either gravel or pave a long access road so equipment could reach the dam. City Manager Swanson identified the location as the Talladega Creek Dam during the discussion.
The motion before the council was to approve an agreement for “the down road remediation project at a cost of $245,701” with Mike Morgan Industrial, LLC. A council member moved the measure and another council member seconded; both were recorded in the meeting as unnamed.
During discussion, council members sought specifics. One council member asked, “Where is this particular location? Location?” and a staff speaker answered, “The Talladega Creek Dam.” Council members also asked whether the water department was the primary user of the road and whether city crews could perform the work instead of contracting it out. A council member said the cost was “a lot of money” for a dirt road and suggested the city might have the equipment to do the work in-house.
On roll call, Councilman Dickerson voted no, Council member Hall voted no, Council member Spratling voted yes, Councilman Denny voted no and Council President Sims voted yes. The mayor announced, “But that does not pass. It is defeated 3 to 2.”
Because the motion failed, the council did not authorize the contract and provided no implementation direction in that vote. Council members asked staff for more specifications — including footage, width and whether in-house crews could complete the task — and suggested further review or a workshop to consider the item.
The council did not adopt any substitute motion or set a follow-up timetable during that item.
Council records during the meeting indicate the council considered the matter as part of water department business and did not vote to fund or proceed with remediation under the proposed contract.
Looking ahead, council members requested additional information from staff to clarify scope and cost before taking a future vote on remediation for this access road.
