Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves multiple infrastructure ordinances, flags recurring project increases
Summary
Council passed several construction-related ordinances and an appropriation but members questioned recurring contract increases and change orders on downtown projects.
At its meeting, the council approved multiple ordinances authorizing professional services, repairs, and appropriations for downtown street and utility projects, and it passed an appropriation from the police reserve fund.
Ordinances passed at the meeting included: - Ordinance 25‑3‑85 (Madison Avenue/WBEB professional services): passed 5–2 after suspension of rules. Council discussion included concerns over repeated increases to project amounts. - Ordinance 25‑3‑86 (repairs to Market Street/Wick Avenue related to the Realty Tower demolition): passed 6–1. Public works explained the work used unit-price bidding; added quantities and emergency work increased contract amounts. - Ordinance 25‑3‑87 (Boardman and Walnut Street improvements): passed unanimously after a question about whether the $2.8 million figure was the original award or an increase; staff said increases had occurred and the original engineer estimate was not available in the meeting. - Ordinance 25‑3‑89 (appropriating $89,384 from police reserve project fund): passed unanimously.
Council members repeatedly questioned why project costs have been increased after award. Councilwoman White argued the practice reduces competitive fairness in bidding and pushed for greater transparency on scope changes. Public works explained that unit-price contracts can lead to higher final amounts if quantities differ from initial estimates or if emergency work arises; staff also noted some additional work (for example, irrigation and fiber conduit) was added to ensure completed work met standards. Officials said ODOT rules and force-account/time-and-materials procedures govern many aspects of change orders on state- or federally funded projects.
Votes at a glance (as recorded in the transcript): - 25‑3‑85: passed, 5 ayes, 2 nays (Kelly and White recorded as nays). - 25‑3‑86: passed, 6 ayes, 1 nay (White recorded as nay). - 25‑3‑87: passed, 7 ayes. - 25‑3‑89: passed, 7 ayes.
Council requested clearer explanations to the public about what triggers change orders, the difference between unit-price bids and change orders, and whether some work should be rebid when scope shifts materially.
