Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Street Repair topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Krebs council disapproves $44,400 Marino Street contract after residents raise drainage, notice concerns
Summary
The Krebs City Council voted to disapprove a $44,400 contract with Drake Construction for the Marino Street project after residents said the block had been dug up without notice and raised concerns about drainage design and the need for fuller engineering review.
Get email alerts on the Street Repair topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Krebs City Council on April 28 voted to disapprove a $44,400 contract with Drake Construction for work on Marino Street, citing unanswered questions about the scope of work, drainage design and the lack of competing bids.
Councilmember Larry Coxsey moved to disapprove the contract "at this time until more information is available," and the motion, seconded by Dan Heathcock, passed on a recorded voice vote (Dan Heathcock—yes; Sherry DeFrange—yes; Jeanetta Hauck—yes; Larry Coxsey—yes). Mayor Zella Kincaid called the vote. The contract amount was included in the meeting materials.
Residents told the council they had returned home to find a block of Marino Street excavated without prior notice and that previously functioning curb-and-gutter and small drainage devices (referred to in the meeting as "tin horns" and flumes) had been removed. One resident said, "we came home from work one day and it was all dug up." Council members said the single bid and the absence of engineering-grade verification increased the risk of repeating past problems.
A representative identified in the meeting as Mr. Drake, associated with the proposed contractor, said the current plan relies on an open gutter or flume approach and that prior open-grate drains had become clogged with dirt. He told the council that to be confident the repaired drainage would carry heavy rain "you would need some grade shots and proper design to feel 100% in a six-inch rain." Councilmembers said that level of engineering information—and additional bids—were necessary before moving forward.
The council directed staff to gather more information and pursue additional bids or an engineering review; no timetable was set during the meeting. The motion to disapprove functioned as an instruction to postpone awarding the contract while the city collects that information.
