Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves Buttonwoods pipeline work after debate over late borings and $31,000 change order
Summary
After questions about why geotechnical borings done in August were not reflected in the Nov. 3 packet, the City Council voted 7–2 to move forward with the Buttonwoods Avenue pipeline replacement while asking administration to obtain vendor answers about the timing and scope of additional borings.
The City Council voted 7–2 on Nov. 17 to advance the Buttonwoods Avenue water‑main replacement project despite sustained concern from several councilmembers about the timing and scope of geotechnical work and a $31,000 change order for additional borings.
Councilmembers pressed city staff after papers accompanying the Nov. 3 bid package were followed three days later by a Stantec change order that recommended three deeper borings (to about 85 feet) and added consultant travel and expenses. Public Works said initial borings in August reached 50 feet and that subsequent analysis led Stantec to request deeper testing to avoid complications from liquefied soils that can cause directional drill deflection.
"The borings in August showed trace conditions that require deeper work to confirm whether directional drilling is viable," Christy Moretti of Public Works said. She told the council the $31,000 covers about $20,000 for field borings and roughly $11,000 for Stantec time and expenses.
Council members repeatedly asked why the August field borings were not reflected in the November 3 materials presented to the council. "If the borings indicated issues in August, why did the change order arrive only three days after the Nov. 3 vote?" one member asked during committee discussion.
City staff and the administration said there is a timing gap between contractors doing field borings, consultants compiling reports, and those reports being finalized for the city. Bill Vicente, chief of staff to Mayor Picozzi, told the council it was important to proceed quickly because the project must fit a six‑month Army Corps of Engineers window; delaying could extend the replacement timeline by years.
Council debate centered on two competing priorities: ensuring vendor accountability and protecting the city from unanticipated costs versus moving ahead quickly to preserve a construction window. The committee initially recommended holding the item so the vendor could appear; when the issue reached the full council, a motion for favorable action prevailed 7–2. Council members asked the administration to secure direct answers from the vendor post‑vote and to keep the council informed if further change orders are needed.
The project is capital‑funded; staff said alternatives to directional drilling are not viable at this site and that the deeper borings are intended to identify a suitable depth for safe installation. The council record shows the additional borings were authorized as a follow‑up to geotechnical findings, and the administration committed to report back on vendor timing and any additional cost implications.
The council president said the committee recommendation to hold would have been forwarded to the full council; because that recommendation was objected to on the floor, the council instead voted on favorable action. The council also earmarked the item for further public discussion and documentation when vendor answers are provided.
