Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Contracts Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears LeMay Enterprises request to clarify CPI index in contract; no amendment approved
Summary
Representatives of LeMay Enterprises explained a federal BLS index name change affecting the contract escalation clause and asked whether the city wants to amend the contract to replace the old index name; council members indicated no immediate formal amendment was required but suggested reviewing past minutes about a possible 5% cap.
Ed, site manager for LeMay Enterprises, and Austin, district controller for LeMay Enterprises, told the Chehalis City Council on Jan. 13, 2025 that the consumer price index (CPI) reference used in their contract (formerly listed as “Olympia‑Tumwater”) no longer appears as a standalone index on the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) site. Austin said the BLS now reports the relevant figures under a broader “All Urban West” index and that the percentage change previously applied (3.3% in the most recent adjustment) ties to that All Urban West series.
Austin said the substance of the index used for calculating increases has not changed — only the published name and the grouping on the BLS site — and asked whether the city prefers an explicit contract amendment changing the index name or whether the parties could proceed under the current practice. Council discussion noted that the change is largely nominal and that if both parties accept the new BLS reference the contract continues to default to the same percentage calculations. Councilmembers also questioned whether a prior action or motion at the time the contract was adopted limited annual increases to a 5% maximum; one councilmember asked staff to review past minutes to confirm whether such a cap was recorded.
City counsel (unnamed in the transcript) advised that if the council wants to formalize the index name change it would require a resolution; otherwise, if both parties concur, the contract could continue to be administered by course of dealing. No formal amendment or resolution was proposed or adopted at the Jan. 13 meeting.
The record shows the discussion focused on ensuring clarity in future adjustments and on whether a 5% cap or other limiting term exists in prior minutes; council did not vote on an amendment and took no binding action.
