Officials approve prequalified bidders for downtown utility, pavement-marking projects; deny two claims, table one

At an open session, two meeting participants approved prequalified bidders for a downtown utility project and a separate pavement-marking contract, and took action on three claims brought during a prior closed session.

Speaker 1 moved to approve a slate of prequalified bidders for the downtown utility project, naming "A 1 Excavating, Earth Incorporated, Hassons Incorporated, Integrity Grading and Excavating, James Peterson and Sons, Merrill Gravel and Construction, Pember Companies, PGA Incorporated, and Switlik and Sons." Speaker 2 seconded the motion and voiced support with “Aye,” after which the motion was carried.

Speaker 1 then moved to approve prequalified bidders for the 26 pavement-marking project, naming "Brickline Incorporated" and "Century Traffic." Speaker 2 seconded and again responded "Aye," approving that procurement step.

Turning to claims considered earlier in closed session, Speaker 2 moved to deny a claim by Levon Cannonburg in the amount of $3,109.93; Speaker 1 seconded, and Speaker 1 voiced "Aye" on the vote to deny the claim. Speaker 2 subsequently moved to deny a separate claim by Darren Chapman for $155.99; Speaker 1 seconded, and Speaker 2 responded in support when the vote was called.

Speaker 2 also moved to table the claim of Mary Swearingen for consideration at a future meeting; Speaker 1 seconded and the motion to table carried on an affirmative voice vote.

The meeting concluded after Speaker 2 moved to adjourn, a second was entered, and the group recorded an "Aye." The transcript does not identify the governing body by name or provide additional detail about the procurement timeline, contract values, or reasons for the claim denials. Those items were not specified in the record provided.

Votes at a glance: the recorded vocal responses in the transcript were limited to the two participants identified only as Speaker 1 and Speaker 2: Speaker 2 spoke for the affirmative on the two procurement approvals; Speaker 1 or Speaker 2 voiced affirmative responses on the claims-related motions as noted above.