Chester council debates removing not-to-exceed cap on Colliers engineering contract; members seek oversight and clearer reporting

City of Chester council members discussed Resolution 31 on Feb. 24, 2025, a proposal to continue using Colliers Engineering & Design under the hourly rates in the original professional-services agreement rather than a fixed not-to-exceed dollar cap. The item drew extended questions about oversight, billing detail and how project costs are funded.

The matter matters to taxpayers because Colliers' engineering work has accounted for more than $1 million in billed work to date and is tied to large capital projects such as the planned Public Works building. Council members said they want clearer documentation showing what Colliers is doing and which funding sources pay for specific charges.

Discussion points included how invoices are submitted and reviewed, whether client authorization forms are being used for each project, and how the council will be kept informed about spending. A council member said, “we're spending a lot of money, with Colliers, and I'm a little concerned,” and asked for proof that work billed to the city produced visible results in neighborhoods.

City staff said Colliers provides monthly invoices itemized by project and that a spreadsheet summarizing project-level spending will be shared. A staff speaker described plans to provide quarterly reports to council; staff offered to provide monthly reports if council prefers. Staff also said project work is authorized through client authorization forms and that the engineer reports to the director of public works, Mr. Haman.

Council members asked for additional documentation standards, including the suggestion that Colliers provide photos or other tangible evidence of on-site work when appropriate. Staff replied that some engineering activities (for example, attendance at meetings) do not generate construction documents or photos but that written documentation and attendance records are available; staff also noted that external review by another engineer could be requested if legitimacy of work were questioned.

Staff and a council-affiliated finance speaker (identified as "Rich" in the meeting) further explained the funding breakdown for amounts previously charged under the contract. The meeting record states an original not-to-exceed threshold of $395,000 for the March 2024 contract; subsequent amendments and project charges raised the total billed amount to roughly $1,200,000. Of previously authorized sums, the record identifies $875,000 as ARPA funds, about $126,000 from land-escrow accounts, $115,000 from the general fund, and about $93,000 for capital projects. Staff said not all of the engineering charges came from local taxpayer general-fund dollars.

Council members sought clarity about whether Resolution 31 would remove financial checks. Staff said the resolution would use the hourly rates set in the original contract rather than a single not-to-exceed cap, but that council retains control because individual projects require client authorization and the council could request contractual terms be revised before final approval. A staff speaker said, “We're using the hourly rates that were in the original contract,” and invited council to propose additional terms for inclusion before filing.

No formal vote on Resolution 31 was recorded in the deliberative meeting transcript. Staff indicated the resolution will be presented at the council's next regularly scheduled meeting and that final approval could include additional terms requested by council.

Clarifying details from the meeting include the original not-to-exceed threshold cited as $395,000, a current cumulative billed amount referenced in the discussion at about $1,200,000, and an earlier addendum figure discussed as $1,950,000 that included non-taxpayer-funded items. Staff agreed to include a breakdown of funding sources in the reporting to council and to continue using client authorization forms for individual projects.

Looking ahead, staff said the Public Works building is the single largest project affecting engineering costs and that the city expects to go out to bid for that building within about 30 days of the meeting. Council members said they may request monthly rather than quarterly reports and asked that staff include funding-source breakdowns and, where applicable, documentation or photos that demonstrate on-the-ground work.