Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Sewer topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council awards $227,560 contract for Lift Station No. 3 rehabilitation

City of Arcola City Council · July 9, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Arcola City Council approved awarding a $227,560 contract to CFG Industries to rehabilitate Lift Station No. 3 and replace 450 linear feet of 12-inch sanitary sewer; the engineer said the low bid came from CFG and construction could start after a pre-construction meeting within two weeks.

The Arcola City Council voted to award CFG Industries a contract valued at $227,560 to rehabilitate Lift Station No. 3 and replace 450 linear feet of 12-inch sanitary sewer.

City engineer Larry Stone (Kaluza, Inc.) told the council the project received three bids and that CFG Industries submitted the low bid. "CFG Industries, they came in as a low bidder with $227,560," Stone said, and recommended council approval so a pre-construction meeting could be scheduled within two weeks. Stone said the contract timeline calls for roughly 75 calendar days of work and warned that weather could affect progress.

A council member moved to award the contract and the motion was seconded. Council approved the award by voice vote; the engineer said he hoped construction would begin before the next council meeting. Stone told members the station currently accepts groundwater even when dry, increasing treatment costs, and that the rehab will address those problems. "This is that lift station that even when it's dry, it's taking on groundwater right now," he said.

The item was discussed as part of the standing engineering report and contract agenda; Stone provided bid amounts for context, noting the low bid, the second-low bid, and the high bid were all included in the recommendation packet. Council did not set a specific notice-to-proceed date at the meeting but directed staff to move forward with pre-construction steps.

Provenance: Council discussion and vote occurred during the contracts and engineering agenda (city engineer presentation and subsequent motion).