Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administration Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances substitute ordinance O2025-006-S1 to clarify mayoral authority, allow limited amendments without council action
Summary
TUMWATER, Wash. — On May 23 the Budget & Finance Committee moved substitute ordinance O2025-006-S1 to the June 3 council consideration calendar with a recommendation to adopt.
Get email alerts on the Administration Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
TUMWATER, Wash. — On May 23 the Budget & Finance Committee moved substitute ordinance O2025-006-S1 to the June 3 council consideration calendar with a recommendation to adopt. The substitute ordinance revises the city code governing execution of contracts and other legal documents, clarifying which agreements must go to council and which limited amendments the mayor may sign.
Karen (staff member) summarized the substitute ordinance as a response to prior committee discussion. “The substitute ordinance does not have that exclusion,” she said, referring to an earlier draft that would have omitted GRAMA-related items and interlocal agreements under $100,000 from council review. Under the substitute, interlocal agreements and grants of any dollar amount still go to council for approval, but there is an exception allowing the mayor to sign amendments that do not increase the original agreement by more than 10%, are within an approved budget and are consistent with the agreement’s original intent.
Committee members asked clarifying questions about scope and delegation. Michael (staff member) asked whether the dollar limit in one subsection applied to instruments pertaining to real property; Karen responded that subsection c (the $100,000 council-approval threshold) is separate from the items in subsection b, which cover categories such as conveyances tied to approved public-works projects, dedications through permitting, temporary construction easements and right-of-entry instruments.
The ordinance would also remove a prior cap that limited the mayor’s delegation (previously a $50,000 cap on delegating the mayor’s authority to directors). As drafted, the mayor may delegate up to the mayor’s full delegable authority (currently contracts up to $100,000 require council approval; that threshold remains the dividing line for council review), and staff added clarifying language that the mayor may sign eligible amendments.
Councilmember Oltauser moved to place the substitute ordinance on the June 3 consideration calendar with a recommendation to adopt; Councilmember Gavi seconded. After brief discussion the committee voted to place the item on the consideration calendar.
The committee and staff described the change as an administrative efficiency measure intended to reduce routine agenda items (for example, minor contract amendments that are within budget and work scope) while retaining council oversight for new interlocal agreements and grants. Staff and several committee members said specific contract approvals, financings or other high-dollar decisions would still come to council for full consideration.
The substitute ordinance will appear on the June 3 council consideration calendar for debate and a possible vote by the full council.

