Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Contracting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Des Moines staff seek council direction to update public‑works contracting rules to match state law
Summary
Assistant city attorney outlined recent state legislative changes affecting small and limited public works processes and presented model MRSC policies; the council directed staff to adopt MRSC model policies, peg dollar thresholds to state law, and retain current contingency guidance while allowing project‑specific higher contingencies.
The Des Moines Committee of the Whole discussed proposed updates to the city's public-works contracting policies June 5 after recent changes in state law. Assistant City Attorney Matthew Edgems explained the changes and invited council direction on three key questions: whether to adopt MRSC model policies for direct contracting, whether to peg dollar thresholds to the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) instead of fixing amounts in city resolution, and whether to raise the standard contingency (retainage) amount for public‑works contracts from 10 percent.
Edgems summarized the legal context: Washington replaced the older "limited public works" process (for very small jobs) and expanded a direct contracting path that allows the city to contract by contacting contractors on the MRSC roster up to a new higher threshold (staff cited up to $150,000). He said that older alternatives (for example contacting only five firms from a roster) were eliminated by statute and that the city’s resolution (Resolution 11‑18) needs revision to conform with the current RCW.
"Public works contracting... is hiring contractors to build or repair improvements on city land," Edgems said in his overview of why the rules exist. He recommended starting with MRSC's model policies and adapting them for Des Moines rather than drafting a new policy from scratch. Edgems also outlined three choices for the council: adopt MRSC model policies, reference RCW thresholds rather than hard‑coding dollar amounts in the resolution, and decide whether to change the standard contingency percentage now or leave the current 10 percent as a baseline with the manager able to recommend higher amounts when risk warrants.
Council members generally supported using MRSC's model policies and referencing the RCW for thresholds so the city's limits track state changes automatically. On contingency, council comments reflected differing views: several members said 10 percent is a common baseline for routine public‑works projects but that some project types (environmental or more uncertain work) may warrant a higher contingency and such requests should be brought to council with justification. Council provided staff direction consistent with those positions; staff said it would bring a revised resolution back for formal consideration.
Ending: Staff will prepare a draft resolution updating Resolution 11‑18 using MRSC model policies for direct contracting, peg thresholds to the RCW language, and preserve a 10 percent contingency baseline while allowing project‑specific adjustments with council notification.
