Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves consent calendar: ordinances, interagency agreement, construction change order, library lease amendment and janitorial contract
Summary
The Richland City Council approved its consent calendar by roll call, approving Ordinance 2025-18 and several resolutions and administrative items, including an interagency agreement with the Washington State Department of Ecology and a change order for a water service project.
The Richland City Council on July 1 approved its consent calendar by roll call vote, taking up routine minutes, an ordinance for second reading and a set of resolutions and administrative items.
Clerk Rogers summarized the consent calendar, which included approval of the June 17 and June 24 meeting minutes; Ordinance No. 2025-18 (amending Richland Municipal Code section 9.24.0.07 related to purchase, possession, or consumption by minors); Resolution No. 2025-581 (authorizing an interagency agreement with the Washington State Department of Ecology on behalf of Hanford Communities); Resolution No. 2025-596 (authorizing change order No. 2 to Contract No. 451.24 with Sharpen Pressler Construction Company, Inc., for the Meadows Drive South Water Service Replacement Project); Resolution No. 2025-597 (authorizing a first amendment to the lease agreement with the Friends of the Richland Library); Resolution No. 2025-598 (authorizing a services agreement with ABM Industry Groups LLC for janitorial services); and the reappointment of Charles Miller to the Richland Public Facilities District Board.
Council voted 6-0 to approve the consent calendar. Clerk Rogers recorded the roll-call vote: Mayor Richardson, aye; Council member Jones, yes; Council member Luxon, aye; Council member Meyer, aye; Council member Witten, aye; Council member Van Dyke, aye.
The council did not pull any items for separate discussion. The items will proceed under the administrative and contractual authorities cited in the packet; specific project-level details (for example, contract amounts and timeline adjustments) were not discussed on the dais during the consent approval.
