Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Streets Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
McAllen commissioners approve repaving contracts after debate over asphalt prices and warranties
Summary
After questions about warranty coverage, subsurface drainage and high hot‑mix prices, the McAllen City Commission approved single‑machine repaving items (2C and 2D) by voice vote; staff said only one bid was received and that contract protections favored the city.
The McAllen City Commission on March 9 approved the single‑machine repaving contract and a companion repaving item after commissioners pressed staff on high hot‑mix prices, warranty limits and subsurface drainage issues.
Commissioner Samora pulled item 2C from the consent agenda and asked why University Drive — listed on the packet as row 29 — appeared on the repaving schedule despite recent paving. He noted a short section of the street had cracked and questioned whether warranty coverage or construction defects explained the accelerated deterioration.
The city manager, Mr. Probst, and public‑works staff said the street inspection showed signs of pavement distress and that soils and a variable groundwater table in parts of the area — including where a new subdivision (Northwoods) is expanding — may be contributing to localized failures. Staff said they could re‑assess that segment and consider crack sealing or narrower repairs where appropriate.
Commissioners also pressed staff on bid pricing for hot‑mix asphalt and whether contracts included commodity‑price adjustments. Staff said the bids reflected elevated petroleum‑based pricing at the time of solicitation and that the contract did not provide for a commodity price adjustment for this procurement. Staff noted the contract includes protections for the city as well as price protections the vendor must honor when applicable. The packet showed recent project pricing history in the 88–95 range per ton on comparable jobs; the winning bid came in higher.
Staff reported that only one bidder, Cutler Repaving, submitted a proposal for the machine‑repave item. Commissioners discussed options — awarding the contract as bid, rejecting and rebidding with different terms, or narrowing the scope to address the most damaged segments — and asked staff to confirm whether construction warranties had expired for the section of University Drive referenced.
After discussion, a motion to approve items 2C and 2D was made, seconded and carried by voice vote. The transcript records the motion as "motion carries"; no roll‑call tally was recorded in the minutes provided.
Next steps: staff indicated they will reassess the University Drive segment, consider targeted repairs or crack sealing to prolong pavement life, and proceed with contract execution on the items approved by the commission.
