Resident questions documentation, costs and ethics tied to recreation-center and Point Mallard construction work

A resident speaker raised ethics and contract-management concerns about ongoing construction at the Decatur Recreation Center and related facilities and questioned whether change-order documents had the city’s required approvals.

Mike Sobol, a public commenter, told the council he had reviewed a 284-page change-order and coordination packet and identified parties listed there, saying ‘‘GMC LLC is the architect...’’ and linking entries in the packet to campaign contributions. Sobol said he found the engineer listed as the city contact on only two emails and asserted that a construction manager and others had responsibility for project oversight. He told the council, ‘‘Not 1 of those change documents is approved by the city of Decatur’’ and said that, in his view, the documents show room for improvement; he also said he had filed two ethics complaints and expected to file more.

City staff responded with explanations during agenda items. At the Point Mallard Event Center item, city staff (identified in the meeting record as Hunter Allen) said four feeders were cut during demolition and described the feeders as labeled RPK, RPB, RPA and LPA, with lengths from about 280 to 450 feet. He said the quote to repair and run new conduit was $38,666 and that construction at the site had paused pending those repairs. The council approved that change order 3-1.

On the Decatur Recreation Center, staff presented Change Order No. 3, which the meeting record shows contains 21 individual change items and a net increase cited in the agenda discussion as $294,806. Staff said the increase is being paid from the contract contingency rather than creating an overrun and noted some credits tied to ALDOT entrance revisions. Staff also said an Encore Group analysis dated June 30 identified $127,000 of the change order as attributable to schedule impacts from unsuitable soils; the council approved the change order after the presentation.

Sobol also criticized project communication and stakeholder approval, saying coordination and approval fields in the packet did not show city approvals he expected. He urged councilmembers to read the documentation before approving change orders and alleged ties between listed firms and council campaigns. Those allegations were made during public comment; no formal investigation or council finding was announced during the meeting.

Council members and staff reiterated that multiple parties — contractors, construction managers, the city engineer and city staff — are involved in project management. Staff noted the change-order package is long and said they would respond to questions about attachments and documentation if council requested further review.

The meeting record does not show that the council took additional investigatory action during the session; they approved the change orders and proceeded to other agenda items.