Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Water Chemicals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Works awards water-utility chemical contracts to Brintag Mid South and GCI
Summary
At its April 7 meeting the Anderson City Board of Works awarded a contract for liquid sodium bisulfite to Brintag Mid South at $2.07 per gallon and a contract for liquid sodium hypochlorite to GCI at $1.43 per gallon after staff recommendation and voice votes.
The Anderson City Board of Works on April 7, 2026 approved contracts to supply two water-treatment chemicals, awarding sodium bisulfite to Brintag Mid South and sodium hypochlorite to GCI.
Staff member S3 told the board, “Utility received 1 bid for liquid sodium bisulfite by Brintag Mid South at $2.07 per gallon. I’m requesting we award the bid to Brintag Mid South, lowest and most responsible bidder.” Committee member S2 moved to approve the award “as presented and requested by superintendent Pasco,” and Chair S1 seconded. Chair S1 called for a voice vote and the board answered “Aye.”
On a separate line item, S3 reported three bids for liquid sodium hypochlorite and recommended the lowest responsible bidder: “The utility received 3 bids for liquid sodium hypochlorite. Brintag Mid South bid $1.64, GCI bid a dollar 43, and Jones Chemical bid a dollar 48. I’m requesting Board of Works award the bid to GCI who was lowest and responsible bidder.” Committee member S2 moved to award the hypochlorite contract to GCI “as presented and requested by superintendent Pasco.” Chair S1 seconded, called for a voice vote and the board approved by saying “Aye.”
Why it matters: The two chemicals are standard inputs in municipal water treatment; awarding local purchase contracts determines near-term supply and operating expense for the utility. The meeting record shows the board used voice votes to approve both awards after staff recommendations; formal signed contracts and unit-quantity details were not read into the record.
The board did not discuss contract durations, total contract values, delivery schedules, or bonds during the meeting. Those details were not specified in the transcript and would normally appear in contract documents filed with the city clerk or in subsequent procurement records.
Next steps: The motions were approved by voice vote; the board did not schedule further discussion on the chemical procurements during this meeting.
