Maumee council presses for clearer oversight after unpaid change order was paid and later approved

MAUMEE, Ohio — The Maumee City Council on July 21 took up a cluster of change orders tied to the city—s Uptown sanitary-sewer rehabilitation project, approved the most recent contested change order and unanimously directed the finance committee to recommend revisions to Chapter 103.05 of the city charter to clarify oversight and limits on change orders.

The action followed questions from several council members and members of the public about when and how change orders were authorized and why one sizable invoice was paid before formal council approval. Council voted to approve the consideration of change order No. 22 for Helms Construction and passed a separate motion instructing the finance committee to develop recommended revisions to section 103.05 for presentation at the next scheduled council meeting.

Councilmember Phil Linebaugh moved to instruct the finance committee to recommend revisions to section 103.05, including dollar limits on individual and cumulative change orders, and the motion passed on a roll call showing unanimous support from councilmembers present. The motion was intended to respond to concerns that dozens of interim change orders had been paid or recorded without clear corresponding council approvals in the meeting packets.

Councilmember Margo Puffenberger raised the core question that led to the referral: "I'm wondering why on here it says that council had approved the first 21 change orders. But, yeah, I don't I don't find I can't find any details on when we approve them and what meeting," she said, describing a review of past agendas and packet materials.

City Administrator Patrick Birch and staff explained the practical construction process that produced the paperwork. Birch said the city—s engineering staff had reconciled quantities and that field orders and interim adjustments are common on large public works contracts. "When you do these projects . . . there are field orders," Birch said. "If a contractor is out there pouring concrete and said, I gotta add 30 more feet of curb, you don't say, stop. I gotta wait for a councilmember in two weeks."

Birch also acknowledged a paperwork discrepancy on the most recent contested item: the invoice underlying change order No. 22 had been signed off by the project supervisor in December and paid in January after staff confirmed the work was complete, but the formal change-order document was not approved by the finance director or council at that time. "I was handed a change order for 06/22/16. I was asked to sign it. It was six months after the time it had been paid. And I refused," Birch said, describing why he later brought the matter to council for approval rather than postdating documents.

Members of the public who reviewed the documents via public-records requests had flagged large sums and timing issues. A member of the public who requested the records, Amy Plocken, said the packet showed the project was about 32% over the original contract and that the most recent change order was "almost $700,000." Plocken urged council to set clearer timeframes for when council should be presented with change-order documentation.

Council and staff also discussed the mechanics of internal approvals. Birch explained accounts-payable practice: an invoice routed to the project supervisor is signed when the supervisor confirms the work was done and payment can be issued. The mayor read the charter provision the finance director cited as the reason for bringing the question to council: "The director of finance shall examine all payrolls, bills, and other claims against the municipality and shall issue no warrant and pay out no monies unless the claim is in proper form, correctly computed, and duly approved," the mayor said during discussion.

After extended discussion of quantity reconciliation, field orders, and the timing of documentation, council voted to approve consideration of change order No. 22 for Helms Construction and to send the charter language to the finance committee for recommended revisions. The council also passed a motion authorizing the finance committee to prepare recommended revisions to 103.05 and present them at the next scheduled meeting.

Council members said they expect the finance committee to draft language that clarifies how long after payment a change order must be presented to council, whether certain thresholds automatically require council action, and whether cumulative change-order percentages should trigger explicit council review.

The Uptown sewer project is a multi-phase, multi-year job; staff said interim quantity adjustments and final reconciling change orders are expected on projects of this scope. Staff also emphasized that some field decisions are made on the ground to keep work progressing and meet regulatory or technical requirements.

Council members and members of the public said the episode exposed a need for better packet transparency and timeliness so elected officials and residents can track large expenditures on multi-year public works projects. The finance committee referral is scheduled to report back by the next council meeting and could lead to an ordinance amending chapter 103.05 to set explicit dollar or percentage thresholds and timing rules for when council must be notified or must vote on change orders.

Votes at a glance

- Motion: Instruct the finance committee to recommend revisions to section 103.05 for overseeing contract compliance, including recommended dollar/percentage limits, to be returned by the next scheduled council meeting. Mover: Phil Linebaugh (Councilmember). Outcome: approved (vote: Linebaugh yes; Puffenberger yes; Barrow yes; Viscus yes; Harris yes; Kurt yes).

- Action: Consideration and approval of Change Order No. 22 for Helms Construction, Maumee Uptown project (document dated December and paid in January before formal council approval). Outcome: approved (roll call recorded as unanimous among members present).